Ill-equipped marital union
For a husband to be entitled to a declaration of nullity of his marriage with his wife under Article 36 of the Family Code (FC), the totality of the evidence presented must sufficiently prove that his wife’s psychological incapacity is grave, incurable and existing prior to the marriage. This is explained in this case of Bernie and Fely.
Bernie and Fely were office mates in a bank. After six months of courtship, they became sweethearts and subsequently got married in a civil ceremony and later in a church wedding. Their marriage produced two sons, Dick and Eddie.
But after 11 years of marriage, Bernie filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Fely on the ground of psychological incapacity before the Regional Trial Court of their province.
In his petition Bernie alleged and testified that even before their marriage, Fely already confided to him that she had a long-standing conflict with her mother, who was very strict and would even beat her. And when he was about to be transferred to another branch of the bank, Fely requested him to marry her so that she could get out of the clutches of her mother. Thus, he decided to marry Fely.
Bernie also declared that after the birth of Dick, they moved in and lived with his parents. Unfortunately, Fely had a conflict with Bernie’s mother Regina, which got worse when she got pregnant with their second son Eddie. In one instance, their heated altercation ended up with Fely getting a knife and brandishing it at Regina’s face. So, Bernie said they left the house of his parents.
Furthermore, Bernie said that at work, Fely often contradicted bank policies implemented by Bernie, thereby compromising his career. There was even an incident when Fely was transferred to another position as a punishment for her refusal to sign her evaluation report.
Eventually, Fely became disconcerted with her state of life and decided to go abroad and work at a bank in the Middle East. With her earnings she barely sent money to her family but only to her mother and siblings. The couple often quarrelled about the length of time Fely would stay abroad and her lavish spending because of her lifestyle. And when Fely would come home from abroad, she would live in another house and not in their home. And she would not share a room with him. Finally, when she came home for good, she did not see Bernie but went to another city. It was only his mother who informed him that Fely was already home.
In support of his case, Bernie also presented Dr. Peña, a practicing psychologist who concluded that Fely is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital obligation due to her narcissistic personality disorder even without personally examining her. Bernie’s mother, on the other hand, testified that she only met Fely once prior to her marriage to her son when Bernie brought her to their home during the town fiesta. Her first impression was that Fely treated her son like a “waiter” as she would instruct him to get her food.
After hearing the case, the RTC rendered a decision denying Bernie’s petition. Aggrieved, Bernie appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed and set aside the RTC decision and found Fely to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. Was the CA correct?
The Supreme Court said the CA is correct. Bernie successfully discharged his burden to prove the psychological incapacity of his wife. Apart from his testimony, he presented witnesses who corroborated his allegations regarding his wife’s behavior. The totality of the evidence presented shows that, as a wife and a mother, Fely lacks empathy for the feelings and needs of her family and is unable to identify and realize the emotional needs and feelings of other people. This is further bolstered by the fact that she unilaterally decided to live by herself in another country. Worse, despite being gainfully employed thereat, she did not even help Bernie in supporting the needs of their children. The CA is thus correct in holding that the gravity, incurability and the root cause of Fely’s psychological incapacity were sufficiently established.
While the psychologist did not personally examine and interviewed Fely, the lack of personal examination and interview of Fely or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder does not per se invalidate the testimony of the doctors. Neither do their findings constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence. There is no requirement for one to be declared psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined by a physician because what is important is the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the party’s psychological incapacity. In this case the psychologist based her assessment on other informants such as Bernie, his mother and Fely’s co-workers, who had the occasion to interact with and experience Fely’s behavioral pattern which they relayed to Dr. Peña.
Therefore, the totality of the evidence presented by Bernie shows a clear case of psychological incapacity, The testimony of an expert witness such as Dr. Peña is not even needed.
All told, the Court’s mandate to protect the inviolability of marriage as the basic foundation of our society does not preclude striking down a marital union that is ill-equipped to promote family life as in this case. (Republic vs. Yaban and Padua, G.R. 219709, Nov. 17, 2021)
* * * Email: js0711192@gmail.com