Physical not psychological

Marriage is an inviolable social institution protected by the State. It cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. The law however allows a declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage like a marriage contracted by any party, who at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support ( Article 36 in relation to Article 68 of the Family Code). This is the law involved in this case of Romy and Julie.

Romy and Julie first met at a five star hotel where they were both working. Following a threemonth courtship, Julie became pregnant already. So to erase any notion of impropriety the lovers immediately contracted marriage, first in a civil ceremony then a church wedding three weeks later.

At the start, they lived harmoniously although marred by minor quarrels from time to time especially about money matters. They did not have major problems and even became partners in Romy’s business pursuits. But when the couple already had three children and their business began to slow down, marital fight became more heated and incessant especially when Romy began to have difficulty supporting Julie and the children at the same level to which they were accustomed.

Their marital relationship got worse about 25 years later after Julie underwent hysterectomy and Romy flew down South on a business trip despite Julie’s opposition thereto. So when Romy came back, their marital spats became more and more violent until Julie left the conjugal home and sued Romy for violation of RA 9262 or Anti Violence Against Women and their Children, filed a petition for annulment of their marriage both of which she withdrew later in lieu of an action for legal separation.

Finally, after 30 years of marriage, Romy already filed a petition before the RTC praying for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Julie on the ground of the latter’s psychologically incapacity under Article 36, of the Family Code. Romy alleged in his petition that barely a few months after they became sweethearts, Julie already exhibited certain negative traits which he merely trivialized. He eventually discovered his wife to be competitive, domineering, headstrong and always determined to get what she wanted in their relationship with their disagreements usually ending up in fights even on trivial matters. Then she would suddenly become overly excited and elated that she got her way whenever he gave in to her desires. Romy further averred that Julie had an exaggerated sense of self importance and entitlement and enjoyed talking about herself. Romy also complained that Julie was indifferent and lacked empathy and failed to take care of him when he was recuperating from two heart surgeries.

In support of his petition, Romy presented a clinical psychologist, Dr. Tina, who submitted a psychological evaluation report based merely on what Romy relayed to her and on an alleged phone interview with Julie whose identity was not even ascertained with definiteness. She said that Julie was suffering from “301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder” as shown by her exaggerated sense of self importance, entitlement, lack of empathy, arrogant and haughty behavior, which are grave, pervasive and incurable.

For her part, Julie manifested that she is no longer presenting contravening evidence and just entered into a compromise agreement with Romy on the division of their properties and support of the children. So the RTC granted Romy’s petition declaring their marriage null and void on the ground of psychological inacapacity of both parties to comply with their essential marital obligations. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Were the RTC and the CA correct?

No, said the Supreme Court ( SC). The SC said that a person’s psychological incapacity to comply with his/ her marital obligations must be rooted on a medically or clinically identifiable grave illness that is incurable and shown to have existed at the time of marriage, although the manifestation thereof may only be evident after marriage. In this case the totality of the evidence presented failed to establish the psychological incapacity of the parties. Dr. Tina merely made a general assessment and conclusion as to the gravity and pervasiveness of Julie’s condition without explaining how she arrived at it. Aside from the phone interview with Julie and from what Romy relayed to her no other evidence supports her conclusion.

Romy’s characterization of his wife is also insufficient to constitute psychological incapacity. At most it merely establishes that their personalities are different and that their frequent arguments revealing Julie’s alleged “incapacity” surfaced only in the latter years of their marriage when they experienced difficulties in their business ventures. Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” or failure of the parties to meet their responsibilities as married persons do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. So the declaration of nullity of Romy’s marriage to Julie must be denied but they are enjoined to comply with compromise respecting the division of the properties and support of their common children ( Republic vs. Pangasinan, G. R. 214077, August 10, 2016). Email: attyjosesison@gmail.com