^

Opinion

Character imperfections

A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) - Jose C. Sison - The Philippine Star

This case of Larry and Angie explains the meaning of “psychological incapacity” as envisioned by the framers of the Family Code when they drafted Article 36 patterned after the Canon Law.

Larry and Angie got married on Oct. 3, 1984.They were blessed with four children. But after 11 years of marriage, several incidents involving Angie happened, which manifested a “negative marital behavior.”

Sometime in September 1995, Angie arrived home at four o’clock in the morning. Her excuse was that she watched a video program in a neighboring town. But later she admitted that she had a Palestinian boyfriend and slept with him. Larry nevertheless tried to persuade her to be conscientious of her duties as wife and mother. But his pleas were ignored and sometimes ended in violent quarrels.

Despite all these incidents, Larry still tried to reconcile with Angie, apparently because he still deeply loved her and wanted to save their marriage for the sake of their children. So with Angie’s commitment to reform, Larry was dissuaded from getting a legal separation. They finally reconciled and tried to start a new life as a couple.

However, a few months after, Angie was back to her old ways. One day when Larry arrived home, Angie was nowhere to be found. He searched for her and found her in a nearby apartment, drinking beer with a male lover. Later, Angie confessed that she had no more love for Larry. So they lived separately.

Larry thought that Angie’s irresponsible, immature and immoral behavior is a sign of psychological incapacity to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. So he referred the matter to a psychologist for evaluation. After examination, the psychologist certified that Angie was indeed psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations, which started when she was still young but became manifest only after marriage and that it was serious and incurable.

Thus, Larry filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Angie on the ground of psychological incapacity. He claimed that Angie was immature, irresponsible and carefree and therefore psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations as manifested by her infidelity, negligence and nocturnal activities.

The RTC granted Larry’s petition and declared his marriage to Angie null and void based on the report of the psychologist. But on appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), this was reversed and set aside. The CA ruled that Angie’s alleged sexual infidelity, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility do not constitute psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code because the psychologist failed to identify the root cause thereof or that it was medically or clinically permanent and incurable. Was the CA correct?

Yes. Psychological incapacity required by Article 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedents and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party, antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only thereafter. It must be incurable, or even if curable, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

In this case, Larry’s testimony did not prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of Angie’s condition. Even the psychologist failed to show the root cause of her psychological illness. The totality of the evidence failed to establish and explain the incapacitating nature of the illness. More importantly, Angie’s act of living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage. It was not established that Angie’s unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a disordered personality which makes her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.

Undoubtedly, Angie was far from a perfect wife and good mother. She certainly had some character flaws. But these imperfections do not warrant a conclusion that she had a psychological malady at the time of marriage, rendering her incapable of fulfilling her marital and family duties and obligations (Ligeralde vs. Patalinghug, G.R. 168796, April 15, 2010. 618 SCRA 315).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]

FAMILY CODE

  • Latest
Latest
Latest
abtest
Are you sure you want to log out?
X
Login

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

Get Updated:

Signup for the News Round now

FORGOT PASSWORD?
SIGN IN
or sign in with