Republic of The Philippines Regional Trial Court Branch 25 Surigao Del Sur AAA
Republic of The Philippines Regional Trial Court Branch 25 Surigao Del Sur AAA
Republic of The Philippines Regional Trial Court Branch 25 Surigao Del Sur AAA
DECISION
Before this Court is a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage of
AAA, Petitioner, and BBB, Respondent, on the ground of psychological
incapacity of the latter to comply with the essential obligations of marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Factual Antecedents
Petitioner, AAA and Respondent, BBB met at Surigao del Sur. They had a
romantic relationship which resulted to the pregnancy of AAA of their first
child. On AAA’s second month of pregnancy, however, BBB went into
hiding. BBB, although reluctant, was eventually convinced to marry AAA.
They got married on October 26, 1996.
At that time, both of them had no visible income so they lived in the house
of AAA’s parents who took care of their needs. During that time, BBB
would always leave AAA, spending more time with his friends rather than
taking care of her. Later on, BBB got a job in Butuan City. BBB’s attitude of
being irresponsible persisted and would only send AAA a small amount of
his income, sometimes even none at all.
Months later, AAA heard that BBB has a mistress in the company where he
works. BBB then later called AAA to tell her that he will resign and the
reason is because he had impregnated the daughter of the canteen owner of
his company and wanted to hide/run from his responsibility. So BBB
returned to Surigao and though AAA thought that she would be happy upon
the return of her husband, he continued to be a habitual drinker and spent
most of his time with his friends instead of his family. This persisted when
their first child was already a year old, AAA became pregnant with their
second child. While AAA would work for a living, BBB would just play
basketball and have a drinking spree with his friends.
Later, AAA discovered that BBB was meeting his former girlfriend which
the latter vehemently denied and he even promised to change for the better.
Their third child was later on born and they lived on their own. BBB had no
intention to earn a living and depended on AAA’s income from selling fish.
BBB still habitually gets drunk and maltreated AAA and even threatened her
with a knife.
While in Manila, AAA heard that BBB destroyed their house and is
maintaining a romantic relationship with another woman. So AAA went
home again to settle things but BBB did not have the slightest effort of
changing himself.
Issue
Basically, the issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not the totality
of evidence presented warrants, the declaration of nullity of the marriage of
Petitioner and Respondent on the ground of the latter’s psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Ruling
This Court denies the Petition. The Family Code explicitly defines marriage
as a “special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and
family life”. Being the foundation of the family and regarded as an
inviolable social institution, it shall be protected by the State.
It has been noted that there has been numerous cases regarding the
declaration of nullity of marriage assailing the ground of psychological
incapacity. Article 36 of the Family Code expressly states that: “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.”
The law confines the ground of psychological incapacity to serious cases of
personality disorders which clearly shows utter disregard to the concept of
marriage. Numerous jurisprudence has held that psychological incapacity
must be characterized by (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, and (3)
incurability. Gravity means that such incapacity must be grave and serious
in such a way that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
duties required in a marriage. Juridical antecedence implies that it must be
rooted in the history of the party or that it must be present at or even before
the celebration of marriage, even though it manifested only, as the law
provides, after solemnization. Lastly, incurability means that such incapacity
must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond
the means of the party involved.
In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, this Court laid down
the more definitive guidelines in the disposition of psychological incapacity
cases, to wit;
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity;
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or
clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision;
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. In other words, there is
a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person
from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential
to marriage;
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68
up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their
children;
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.
In the present case, it has been argued that even before marriage, traces of
BBB’s alleged personality disorder were already showing by the fact that he
went into hiding upon learning that his girlfriend was pregnant. His refusal
to face the AAA after learning of the pregnancy, much less marry her, is
argued to be reflective of his state of mind as a bachelor and his
corresponding attitude towards marriage. Such overt manifestations
successively emerged after the celebration of marriage. BBB never bothered
to find a job stayed in his parents’ family home and shamelessly depended
on his parents for support. He was more engaged in drinking and in
extramarital affairs. It can be recalled that when he was able to land a job in
Butuan, he refused to send any amount to support his family. Worse, he
impregnated the daughter of the canteen owner of the company where he
worked.
From the foregoing facts and using the abovementioned standards set by
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, it can be inferred that
psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, refusal or
neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. Irreconcilable
differences between the parties, sexual infidelity and emotional maturity and
irresponsibility, are not by themselves enough to establish psychological
incapacity as defined under Article 36 of the Family Code.
As held in Mirasol Castillo vs. Republic of the Philippines and Felipe
Impas, “In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological
incapacity, the Respondent's unfaithfulness must be established as a
manifestation of a disordered personality, completely preventing the
Respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the marital state;
there must be proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively
incapacitated him from complying with the obligation to be faithful to his
spouse. It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the
like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the
psychological disorder itself.”
In support of her case, Petitioner aside from statements from her daughter
who stood as witness, she even presented a Clinical Psychologist who, in her
Psychological Evaluation Report, diagnosed the Respondent as having
Narcissistic Personality Disorder coupled with a characteristic of a
Borderline Personality Disorder which concluded that he is psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill essential marital obligations expected of him.
Guided by the foregoing principles and after a careful perusal of the records,
this Court rules that the totality of the evidence presented failed to establish
Respondent’s psychological incapacity.
SO ORDERED.
Presiding Judge