Legally inexistent

The State has a constitutional mandate to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution because it is the foundation of the family as the family is the foundation of the nation (Article Article XV. Sections 1 and 2, Constitution). But under Article 36 of the Family Code (FC), the nullity of marriage may be declared by the Court on the ground of psychological incapacity of one of the parties to the marriage based on the “totality of evidence” presented by the spouse seeking its nullity. This is explained in this case of Dina and Romy.

Dina met Romy when the latter was only 19 years old. Being next door neighbors, Dina knew long before that Romy was irresponsible and had been in and out of school. She observed that he did not speak much, easily got bored and exhibited a short temper when drunk. He was also irritable and unable to keep a job. Their relationship, however, was all rosy during the courtship stage. So she still married him civilly, hoping he would change after they got married. But he did not. He continued to be lackadaisical which often caused his termination from work. He was often unruly and violent, especially when drunk as he would always end up fighting with friends. Romy also frequently abused Dina physically, even during their petty arguments. One time, he severely beat her, causing her to be hospitalized. She even suffered a miscarriage due to his fits of anger. He was also verbally and emotionally cruel to her, loathed and insulted her, calling her “old,” “ugly” and “old hag.”

After about four years of marriage, Romy left to work in another Asian country where he had an illicit affair. When his overseas employment expired, he decided to live with his paramour. From then on, Dina and Romy have been living separately.

Dina therefore consulted Dra. Minda de la Rosa a clinical psychologist, who opined that their marriage should be nullified on the ground of Romy’s psychological incapacity based on the information she collated from Dina herself, her relatives, Romy’s relatives and common friends. Her assessment shows that Romy has an “Axis II Anti-Social Personality Disorder” characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others. She explained that people suffering from this disorder are chronically irresponsible, unsupportive and commit criminal acts with no remorse, with a pattern of legal problems, impulsivity, irritability, aggressiveness, physical assault and intimidation, reckless disregard for the safety of others, unwillingness to meet normal standards for work, support and parenting and failure to conform to social behavior in accordance with law. According to Dra. Dela Rosa, Romy’s personality disorder is serious, grave and incurable, has juridical antecedents thus rendering him psychologically incapacitated to perform his responsibilities as husband.

Thus Dina filed a Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Romy. But Romy did not even respond to the Petition. And so after hearing, where Dr. Dela Rosa even elaborated on her report and where Dina also testified, the RTC granted the Petition and declared void ab initio the marriage between Dina and Romy.

On appeal by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of the RTC. The CA ruled that the totality of the evidence on record failed to establish that Romy is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligation. His psychological incapacity was not shown to have juridical antecedence, the CA also ruled. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court (SC) said that the CA is not correct. According to the SC, psychological incapacity refers to a mental incapacity that causes a party to be non-cognitive of the basic covenants which must be assumed and discharged by the parties, particularly to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity, and to help and support each other. It is the inability to understand these obligations of marriage as opposed to a mere disability to comply with them. In this case, the CA discredited the medical findings of Dr. Dela Rosa for lack of probative values because Romy was not personally examined.

There is no requirement, however, that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated must be personally examined. Marriage involves two persons. As such the totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other. The absence of the personal examination of Romy is not fatal as long as the totality of the evidence supports a finding of psychological incapacity or the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the party’s psychological condition. If the totality of the evidence is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to, especially when such omission is attributable to Romy’s own failure or refusal to appear for interview despite repeated invitations he and his relatives have received. Dina’s testimony, as confirmed by the expert opinion of Dra. Dela Rosa, sufficiently established Romy’s psychological incapacity.

In dissolving the marital bonds on the ground of psychological incapacity of either spouse, the court is not demolishing the foundation of the family. By preventing the spouse with psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations from remaining in that sacred bond, the Court is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage. In fact there is no marriage to speak of since it is void from the very beginning (Santos-Gantan vs. Santos-Gantan, G.R.225193 Oct. 14, 2020).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]