Without love and respect but violence, disdain, pain, and infidelity, marriage becomes a bondage of suffering.

Thus, the Court of Appeals (CA) – reiterating a previous Supreme Court (SC) ruling – said: “Preserving such marriage is antithetical to the kind of partnership and celebration of love we have in our laws, traditions, and beliefs as a society.”

The CA decision, written by Associate Justice Carlito B. Calpatura, granted the appeal of Laine (not her real name) who sought the reversal of a trial court’s ruling that dismissed her petition for nullity of marriage against Nulfo (also not his real name).

(Manila Bulletin redacted the real names of the parties in the case – docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 119384 -- to protect their and their son’s privacy.)

Laine’s petition for nullity of marriage was based on Article 36 of the Family Code on the alleged psychological incapacity of Nulfo to fulfill his marital obligations.

She told the court she met Nulfo in 2001 in school and thereafter became a couple.

But, she said, Nulfo became irresponsible and insensitive. Nulfo stopped going to school and spent the tuition fees given by his parents for car accessories, gadgets, clothes, and, worse, on gambling.

She also said that Nulfo turned out to be hot-tempered, impatient, and violent -- getting involved in bar fights, car accidents, and road rages -- to the point that she felt nervous and unsafe in his company.

After her graduation, she said she started working. Nulfo, she said, took several jobs but resigned whenever he disagreed with company rules and regulations.

She also said that Nulfo controlled her every move leading to their breakup in 2007.

Later, however, Laine said they reconciled. With Nulfo’s deployment as overseas worker in December2009, Laine said they decided to get married on Nov. 12, 2009.

Nulfo returned to the Philippines after two months, she said, and he became unemployed thereafter.

In 2010, Laine said she became pregnant and Nulfo was anxious about their future. She also said she was treated coldly and indifferently by Nulfo.

Laine said she gave birth to their son in March 2011. Since then, Nulfo tried to look for a job and secured one in Palawan but he resigned after three months, she also said.

She added that they started to argue and quarrel as he always blamed her for their financial predicaments.

During their fights, she said that Nulfo uttered foul and hurtful words, and threw things within his reach. She also said she tried to endure all the physical and emotional hurt to save their marriage.

Laine told the trial court that their arguments and fights worsened and that Nulfo even hurt her and their son regularly. She also said that she found that Nulfo had a mistress.

In 2014, Nulfo abandoned Laine and their son. Laine filed before the trial court a petition for nullity of marriage on Oct. 18, 2018.

Despite summons, Nulfo did not file his answer to the petition.

The RTC, acting as a family court, denied Laine’s petition for insufficiency of evidence.

The trial court ruled that Laine failed to establish Nulfo’s psychological incapacity in performing the essential marital obligations.

It said the assessed personality disorder of Nulfo is “not so grave as to constitute psychological incapacity to perform his essential marital obligations.”

The court pointed out that the narration of facts made by Laine “negates the alleged manifestations of Arnulfo’s supposed psychological incapacity to perform his essential marital obligations.”

With the denial of her motion for reconsideration, Laine appealed to the CA.

The appellate court ruled that Laine “was able to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Nulfo is psychologically incapacitated; thus, warranting a declaration of nullity of their marriage.”

It said that Nulfo’s psychological incapacity was sufficiently established by Laine’s narration of facts, by the corroborative testimonies of two witnesses, and the expert testimony of a psychologist.

The pieces of evidence proved that Nulfo “exhibited acts of dysfunctionality which are the manifestation of a personality structure that makes it impossible for him to understand and/or comply with his essential marital obligations towards Laine.”

In reversing the trial court decision, the CA also cited Nulfo’s infidelity towards Elaine before and during their marriage, his unexplained failure to maintain a stable job, thus failing to properly contribute to the financial needs of his family, and his penchant for resorting to verbal and emotional violence against Laine.

“We find that Nulfo’s irresponsibility, infidelity, and penchant for resorting to verbal and physical violence, as sufficiently proven by the evidence adduced, constituted manifestations of his assessed personality disorder, and by way of consequence, Nulfo’s psychological incapacity,” the CA said.

It pointed out: “Indeed, verbal and emotional abuse and acts of infidelity each constitute a ground for legal separation. But where each one of these grounds or a combination thereof, at the same time, manifests psychological incapacity that had been existing even prior to the marriage, the court may void the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.”

Thus, the CA declared Laine’s marriage to Nulfo void on the ground of psychological incapacity.