In case of doubt…
Under the new Family Code which took effect on Aug. 7, 1988, a marriage may now be declared null and void from the beginning because of the psychological incapacity of one of the parties to perform the essential marital obligations of living together, observing mutual love, respect and fidelity, and rendering mutual help and support. The psychological illness must be so grave and permanent and only confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Do sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like, by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity? This is the main issue raised and answered in this case of Rudy and Linda.
Rudy met Linda in a bar where Linda worked as a waitress. He immediately fell in love with her because she was beautiful, sexy and fun to talk with. In fact other male customers were also attracted to her including Rudy’s friend Lito. Eventually however, Rudy won the heart of Linda and the two became lovers. Thus Linda already quit her job, managed a boarding house owned by her uncle and studied Health Aide financed by Rudy. Later on Rudy learned that Linda continued writing her pen pals and asked money from them. Linda also told him that she had an illegitimate son by a man whose identity she did not reveal. But Rudy still maintained his relationship with Linda and when he learned that Linda’s uncle was prodding her to marry an American, Rudy already asked Linda to marry him for fear of losing her. So they got married before the Municipal Trial Court Judge.
During the first year of their marriage, their relationship went well. But when Linda started selling RTWs and cosmetics, problems began since she could no longer attend to him and to the household chores. It worsened when she started working as an aerobics instructor at a local gym where, according to Rudy, Linda’s flirtatiousness and promiscuity recurred. His cousin Tess who was a vendor in the gym even told him that Linda always wears tight fitting and sexy clothes and allows male clients to touch her body; that she is always seen with male companions and flirts with them; that she concealed her marital status by using her maiden name in the telephone directories; and that there was one time when Rudy fetched Linda but Linda went with another man which angered Rudy; and that she refused to bear a child fathered by Rudy because it will destroy her figure. So after three and a half years of marriage Rudy left Linda and never reconciled with her again.
About seven years after leaving Linda, Rudy filed a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of their Marriage and for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). He claimed that his marriage with Linda did not cure her flirtatiousness and sexual promiscuity; and that her behavior indicates her lack of understanding and appreciation of the meaning of marriage rendering the same null and void because of her psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36, of the Family Code.
To prove his case, Rudy, his friend Lito and his cousin Tess testified who reiterated and affirmed the events leading to their break-up. Also presented was a clinical psychologist who drafted a Psychological Assessment of the Marriage where she concluded that Linda is “a
nymphomaniac, who has a borderline personality, a social deviant, an alcoholic and suffering from anti social personality disorder, among others, which illnesses are incurable and are the causes of her psychological incapacity to perform her marital role as the wife of Rudy.”
Linda for her part opposed the petition. She claimed and testified that Rudy knew of her child even before she met him, yet he continued courting her that led to their eventual marriage. She also claimed that it was Rudy who was linked with several women who went home very late, kept his earnings for himself and subjected her to physical harm whenever she called his attention to his vices; that she worked at the gym to cope with the needs of life and she taught only female students as shown by a certification from the gym. She also presented a statement of account from the PLDT showing that she used her married name when they were still living together. In fact according to Linda, it was Rudy who abandoned her for other women, the latest of which was Ludy whom she charged together with Rudy, with concubinage.
After trial the RTC ruled in favor of Rudy and declared his marriage to Linda null and void. The court said that all the actuations of Linda as testified by Rudy and his witnesses are clear indications of Linda’s psychological incapacity. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals which even ruled that “nymphomania, the condition which the expert said Linda was afflicted with, was a ground for psychological incapacity.” Were the RTC and the CA correct.
No, said the Supreme Court. The totality of the evidence presented by Rudy is insufficient to sustain a finding that Linda is psychologically incapacitated. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the FC, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage although it may appear only thereafter. It must be as grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is to assume. The acts attributed by Rudy to Linda are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is serious, incurable or grave as contemplated by said article. Mere “difficulty”, “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of marital obligations or “ill will” on the part of the spouse is different from “incapacity” rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness. Indeed, irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity.
The claim of Rudy that Linda does not want to get pregnant is a mere allegation of Rudy. No other proof is presented to support it. It is therefore insufficient to justify the nullification of the marriage.
The report of the psychologist that Linda is a nymphomaniac failed to specify the names of the men Linda had sexual relationship with or the circumstances surrounding the same. Indeed the conclusions drawn by the report are vague, sweeping and lack sufficient factual basis. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage and indissolubility of the marital vinculum. (Navales vs. Navales, G.R. 167523, June 27, 2008).