Only two of seven petitions involving nullity of marriage grounded mostly on the Family Code’s provision on psychological incapacity of one or both spouses were granted by the Court of Appeals (CA) in decisions promulgated last April 29 and 30.
In most of its decisions, the CA said it “commiserates with parties who find themselves in an unsatisfactory marriage, but unless it is proven with clear and convincing evidence that one or both parties are psychologically incapacitated, the Court must resolve in favor of the existence and preservation of the marriage.”
It cited various Supreme Court (SC) rulings which emphasized that “as marriage is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution, it is protected by the State and cannot be easily dissolved at the whim of the parties.”
It reminded the public: “Those who come to court in an attempt to sever the martial vinculum bears the heavy burden of showing that there is a serious ground to nullify the same. If the petitioner failed to discharge the burden, the presumption in favor of the validity of marriage must therefore prevail.”
In one petition, the CA ruled: “To reiterate, psychological incapacity must be more than just the alleged abusive behaviors of the spouses and difficulty in the performance of the marital obligations; it is not enough that a party proves that the other failed to meet the responsibility and duty of a married person.”
It also said: “To stress, a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. These differences do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and are not manifestations thereof which may be a ground for declaring their marriage void, absent any proof that these are manifestations of an incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological condition or illness.”
Again, citing SC rulings, the CA declared: “An acrimonious and unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.”
In granting the nullity of marriage and affirming the rulings of the regional trial court (RTC), the CA said: “In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, by refusing to allow a person or persons afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond.”
The CA said: “In this regard, it must be noted that, in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as it is void from the very beginning. To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.”
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage may be declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. It provides: “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
In 2021, the SC has ruled that psychological incapacity is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified. Thus, it said, expert opinion is not required.
In its precedent-setting decision, the SC declared: “Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called ‘personality structure,’ which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.”
The SC said: “Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations.”
It also said: “Furthermore, there will be no need to label a person as having a mental disorder just to obtain a decree of nullity. A psychologically incapacitated person need not be shamed and pathologized for what could have been a simple mistake in one's choice of intimate partner, a mistake too easy to make as when one sees through rose-colored glasses. A person's psychological incapacity to fulfill his or her marital obligations should not be at the expense of one's dignity, because it could very well be that he or she did not know that the incapacity existed in the first place.”
While the CA did not redact the names of the parties in the seven petitions, Manila Bulletin decided not to publish their complete names to respect and protect their privacy and those of their children.
Granted by the CA in decision written by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong was the nullification of marriage filed by Synon against her wife Maria Cristina. Synon’s petition was denied by the RTC. However, the CA reversed the trial court’s ruling.
“Based on the totality of evidence presented, the Court finds that Synon's mixed personality disorder, coupled with his infidelity and abusive behavior rendered him unable to fulfill his marital obligations to live together with Cris, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. Such inability is further exacerbated by the fact that, aside from their physical separation for five years, Cris already has a child with another man after she and Synon separated,” the CA ruled in the petition denominated as CA-G.R. CV No. 120391.
Also affirmed by the CA was the RTC ruling that granted the petition for nullity of marriage filed by Duane against her wife Amanda. The CA decision in the petition denominated as CA-G.R. CV No. 118695 was written by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
The CA ruled: “In this case, since the marriage between appellant Amanda and appellee Duane is void due to appellee Duane's psychological incapacity, there is no marriage bond to speak of. Thus, the marriage between the appellee Duane and the appellant Amanda was void due to the psychological incapacity of appellee Duane.”
The five petitions which the CA denied as it upheld the rulings of the trial courts dismissing the petitions for nullity of marriage were those filed by:
1. Raquel vs Henry and the RTC in CA-G.R. CV No. 117312. The CA, in the decision written by Associate Justice Jennifer Joy C. Ong, ruled: “A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. These differences do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and are not manifestations thereof which may be a ground for declaring their marriage void, absent any proof that these are manifestations of an incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological condition or illness.”
2. Monica vs Noel in CA-G.R. CV No. 121716. Monica filed a nullity of marriage case against Noel for alleged bigamous marriage. The RTC dismissed petition with a ruling that there was no reliable evidence presented to prove that Sherry (the alleged first wife of Noel) was still alive at the time of the marriage between Monica and Noel. The RTC likewise found that the evidence shows that the Ronald Noel, who married Monica, and the Noel, who married Sherry, are not one and the same person. Thus, the RTC ruled that Monica failed to rebut the presumption in favor of marriage, and upheld the validity of the marriage between Monica and Noel. The CA decision, written by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
3. Jennalyn vs Kahlel in CA-G.R. CV No. 121227 also written by Associate Justice Roxas. The RTC ruled that the totality of evidence presented by Jennalyn failed to prove Kahlel’s psychological incapacity.
The CA said: “It is noteworthy that Jennalyn declared during trial that she fell deeply in love with Kahlel as he was sweet, kind, and caring to her during their boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. She further admitted that they were living happily during the start of their marriage since Kahlel was as caring as he was before. Such facts belied Jennalyn’s claim of psychological incapacity existing at the time of marriage. In fine, the Court finds no cogent reason to warrant the severance of the parties’ marital bonds.”
4. Gina vs Danilo in CA-G.R. CV No. 121398 written by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos. The RTC dismissed Gina’s petition with a ruling that the evidence she presented failed to establish the alleged psychological incapacity of Danilo through clear and convincing evidence. It also said that Gina failed to establish the requisite of juridical antecedence and that the complained acts of Danilo do not necessarily make him psychologically incapacitated.
Upholding the RTC, the CA said: “Here, Gina portrays Danilo as one who is irrational, jealous, temperamental, abusive, manipulative, self-centered, insensitive, and apathetic. However, the Court finds that these characteristics do not rise to the level of ‘psychological incapacity’ that the law requires. Rather, it appears from the evidence presented that the alleged manifestations of Danilo’s psychological incapacity refer to ‘mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts’ generally brought about by human nature and the natural dynamics of every personal relationship.”
5. Eugene vs Mary Anne in CA-G.R. CV No. 121605 written by Associate Justice Santos. The RTC ruled that the juridical antecedence of Mary Anne’s alleged psychological incapacity was not proven in the petition filed by Eugene and, thus, their marriage cannot be declared null and void.
The CA ruled: “Eugene’s testimony about Mary Anne being a nagger, financially demanding, and refusing to cohabit with him are likewise not sufficient to establish psychological incapacity because a finding of psychological incapacity requires a showing of a dysfunctional personality structure and not mere bad behavior. It also appears that Eugene caused the doom of his own marriage when he had an illegitimate child with his mistress in 2008, in blatant disrespect of the sanctity of their marital union, and then later on went complaining in his Petition that he and Mary Anne could not fix their marriage anymore and went on their separate ways that same year.
“Meanwhile, even assuming that Eugene’s allegation of sexual infidelity and abandonment on the part of Mary Anne were true, they are merely grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code and not for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.”