Sadsad Tamesis Legal and Accountancy Firm

Is psychological incapacity grounds for nullity even if it fully manifests after marriage? | G.R. No. 263627

Is psychological incapacity grounds for nullity even if it fully manifests after marriage? | G.R. No. 263627
PHOTO: Nik Shuliahin/UNSPLASH

Facts

Ronald met Florence at the Ilocos Training and Medical Center in San Fernando City, La Union.  In 1998, Ronald courted Florence due to the prodding of their co-workers. They officially became a couple in 1999. A year later, in 2000, Ronald resigned from his work in San Fernando, La Union to work in Saudi Arabia. While working abroad, he and Florence would often call each other, frequently arguing over the phone.

After Ronald’s contract in Saudi Arabia expired, he returned to the Philippines in 2002 for a vacation. It was in this year that he and Florence decided to marry in secret, but did not live together as husband and wife. In 2004, Ronald vacationed in the Philippines again. This time, he and Florence had their church wedding. A week later, Ronald returned to Saudi Arabia.

In 2005, Ronald decided to return to the Philippines for good and began living with Florence. In April 2007, they had their first child, a son. All of them stayed with Florence’s family in Naguilian, La Union. A month later, Florence returned to work while Ronald stayed home to care for their son.

One night, Ronald’s cellphone rang, and Florence answered the call. The caller sounded like a drunken woman who was asking for Ronald and claimed to have been waiting for him. This angered Florence because she suspected that Ronald was having an affair.

In January 2008, Florence left for London to work. While she was abroad, Ronald and his mother cared for his and Florence’s son. Florence regularly sent money to Ronald and their child, and every year, she would come home to vacation in the Philippines with her family.

Beginning in April 2010, around the time of their son’s third birthday, Florence stopped sending money to Ronald. She, however, continuously sent money to her parents. Florence’s mother asked Ronald if he needed money, but Ronald said he could provide for his child on his own. Eventually, with the urging of his family, Ronald left for the United States to work and left his child in the care of his mother.

Three months later, in August 2010, Florence’s family asked Ronald if they could have his son because Florence was coming home from London. They then fetched the child, whom they had to trick into coming with them. Since then, his son has stayed with Florence’s family.

While he was in the United States, Ronald pleaded with Florence to communicate with their child. Florence refused and even threatened him with deportation.

In 2011, Ronald returned home for a vacation. He called Florence to request time to bond with their son and to give him pasalubong. This time, Florence agreed.

However, the next day, Florence’s family called Ronald and told him that something had happened to Florence. This caused Ronald and their son to rush to Naguilian, where Florence resided at that time. That afternoon, Ronald and Florence spoke and agreed to live together as a family again.

Ronald described his rekindled relationship with Florence as good, except for their arguments. Whenever they fought, he would allegedly shut down and stay silent, resulting in sleepless nights for him. 

In December 2012, Ronald and Florence had their second child, a daughter. Florence returned to work, leaving Ronald to care for the children. A year later, Ronald left the Philippines to work abroad, sending USD 500.00 every month to the family. 

In November 2015, Ronald returned to the Philippines for the third time since he left in 2013. When Ronald came home, Florence noticed that his attitude toward her had changed. When she asked him about this, Ronald replied that he was just exhausted from all the traveling. However, Ronald and Florence frequently fought over Ronald’s alleged affairs. Ronald then told Florence that he no longer loved her. She then began packing her things, but Ronald pleaded with her not to leave because their son still had classes, and their separation would disrupt his schooling. Florence agreed and decided to stay.

In March 2016, Florence returned to Naguilian with her daughter. However, her son did not want to go with her, and so he stayed with Ronald. Since then, Ronald and Florence have been living separately, with Ronald regularly visiting his daughter in Naguilian to check on her. Whenever he remembered his married life, Ronald became angry, senseless, and unreasonable at the slightest insinuations. He endured sleepless nights and stressful days.

Ronald also presented the expert opinion of Mr. Winston D. Carrera (Carrera), a psychologist. Carrera diagnosed Ronald with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, stating that Ronald “developed a twisted perspective of effectively keeping a relationship” in that he would “say yes, but his behavior screams no.”

According to Carrera, Ronald’s passive aggressiveness makes him incapable of directly “communicating his needs and wishes clearly, expecting his spouse to read his mind and meet his needs. Carrera attributes Ronald’s psychological incapacity to his mother, who was a “strict disciplinarian who “offered… too much demand and too little warmth.” Wanting to keep his mother’s love, Ronald learned “to avoid expressing his thoughts and genuine feelings” and “saw the need to keep his emotions bottled up, especially anger, just to be able to protect the tenuous bond he has with his mother. 

Due to the disorder being allegedly grave, incurable, permanent, and deeply rooted, Carrera recommended the dissolution of Ronald and Florence’s marriage.

ISSUE: Is Ronald psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations?

Ruling

YES. 

As clarified in the Tan-Andal case, psychological incapacity is a legal concept. As such, ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. Medical or expert opinion on the existence of psychological incapacity is no longer required, but may be considered by courts if offered in evidence. 

This marks a radical departure from the formerly medicalized conceptualization of psychological incapacity to include “the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage, an erroneous characterization that began with Santos v. Court of Appeals and reinforced by Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina and other subsequent cases.

Based on the evidence presented by the petitioner, he clearly and convincingly proved his psychological incapacity, specifically its juridical antecedence. It remains undisputed that the petitioner grew up with a strict mother who “offered him too much demand and too little warmth. As a result, he maintained emotional distance in relationships, learning how to bottle up his true emotions and feelings just to keep the peace. This is why the petitioner can perform essential marital obligations tied to providing the family’s material needs, such as financial support, but lacks in providing emotional needs, the most basic of which is physical presence and companionship.

Indeed, there is evidence of the emotional distance between the spouses, which was exacerbated by the frequent physical distance between them due to their jobs. A review of the facts shows that from 1999-2002, when the parties were still dating, they were only physically together for about a year, i.e., in the years 1999-2000. From 2000 to 2002, they were apart. While they communicated over the phone, they often did so just to fight.

From the time they were married in 2002 until they separated for good in 2016, petitioner and private respondent were only physically together for about five years: (1) from 2005-2008, when petitioner went home from Saudi Arabia; (2) from 2011-2012, when the parties reconciled; and (3) from 2015-2016, when petitioner went home from the United States. These show that the petitioner can maintain a relationship only from a distance, frequently keeping his spouse at arm’s length.

Besides, just because a spouse was once able to perform some marital obligations does not mean that they cannot be subsequently incapable of fulfilling some of the other obligations. This is why Article 36 of the Family Code states that psychological incapacity can manifest after the marriage’s solemnization. In the case of petitioner, his psychological incapacity fully manifested later in the marriage, specifically in 2016, 14 years into the marriage.

Loving one’s spouse is an important, if not the most important, essential marital obligation. Petitioner already asserted that he no longer loved the private respondent. He also proved that his inability to love private respondent back is rooted in a durable part of his personality, caused by a potentially emotionally immature parent. For these reasons, petitioner must not be forced to stay in a loveless marriage, and his marriage to private respondent must be voided.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

gacor4d slotgacor4d sakuratoto3 totoagung amintoto qdal88 totokita3 qdal88 cantiktoto slot gacor 4d gacor4d gampang menang toto slot slot gacor 4d slot gacor maxwin agen toto slot gacor maxwin idn slot slot gacor slot gacor 4d slot gacor slot gacor 4d toto macau slot thailand toto slot slot thailand slot qris slot gacor gampang menang
  • sakuratoto2
  • situs gacor terpercaya
  • toto slot
  • slot togel
  • https://157.245.54.109/ https://128.199.163.73/ https://cadizguru.com/ https://167.71.213.43/