Unsatisfactory, not invalid

This is another case involving Article 36 of the Family Code (FC) about the supposed psychological incapacity of husband or wife or both to perform the essential marital obligations.

The issue raised and answered here is about the difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital obligation or ill will on the part of a spouse. Will they warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under said Article?

This is the case of Ernie and Edna, who first met when they were still in high school. It was love at first sight for the two, when Ernie was a senior while Edna was a sophomore. And after just a few months of being in relationship, Edna already introduced Ernie to her parents as her future husband. But her parents opposed the relationship because her father wanted Edna to finish her studies first. So despite the objection of her parents, the couple decided to elope and eventually got married about one year after they met.

For the first few months of their marriage they lived harmoniously. But after a year, they started having frequent and violent quarrels. Ernie would always go out with his friends and stay with his grandmother instead of going home to his wife. Edna would then confront and shout invectives at Ernie, insulting him and his family, prompting him to leave the house and stay with his own family. But Edna would fetch him and bring him home to settle their issues. This cycle in their married life went on for quite some time as Ernie began spending more time with his friends and relatives, realizing that he was happier without his wife. On the other hand, Edna started complaining that Ernie was a failure as a husband and accused him of being a womanizer and alcoholic.

The couple’s relationship worsened three years after they first met when Ernie left the conjugal home and Edna did not fetch him as she usually did. They lost communication with each other from then on, with Edna eventually learning that Ernie had extra-marital affairs.

So they finally decided to separate as Ernie filed before the regional trial court (RTC) a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground that they were both psychologically unfit to perform their essential marital obligations, as shown by the psychological assessment reports of Dr. Thelma, who diagnosed him and Edna with passive-aggressive personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder, respectively.

In her answer, Edna denied the material allegations of Ernie and claimed that she was a doting wife to him, that she had already forgiven him of all his shortcomings and that she was willing to welcome him back with open arms.

After trial, the RTC dismissed Ernie’s petition, ruling that there was no showing that the behavior of either of them manifested a disordered personality which made them completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage. It ruled that Ernie’s behavior was rooted not on some psychological disorder but rather on his mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential marital obligations.

On appeal by Ernie, this decision was reversed and set aside by the Court of Appeals (CA), which found both parties psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the basic duties of marriage as corroborated by the reports of Dr. Thelma. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court (SC) said the CA decision was wrong. The SC ruled that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the FC must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability existing at the time of the celebration of marriage. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.

The incapacity must be grave or serious as would incapacitate them from carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestation may emerge only after marriage. And it must be incurable or beyond the means of the parties involved.

In this case the incapacity of Ernie is premised not on some debilitating psychological condition but rather from his refusal and unwillingness to perform the essential marital obligations. Based on Dr. Thelma’s report itself and on the testimony of Ernie, Ernie is quite resistive and whenever arguments would arise between him and Edna, he would just leave the house and would not even come back on his own accord, thereby creating more strain between him and his wife, who eventually got tired of his attitude. While the union between Ernie and Edna was an acrimonious and unpleasant one, the same did not invalidate their marriage.

An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage. Law and jurisprudence contemplates a relationship where no marriage could have been validly concluded because the parties or one of them, by reason of a grave and psychological illness existing when the marriage was celebrated, did not appreciate the obligations of marital life and thus could not have validly entered into a marriage (Dytianquin vs. Dytianquin, G.R. 234462, Dec. 7. 2020).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]