CA affirms nullity of 2 marriage petitions, denies 5 other cases
Only two of seven petitions involving nullity of marriage grounded mostly on the Family Code’s provision on psychological incapacity of one or both spouses were granted by the Court of Appeals (CA) in decisions promulgated last April 29 and 30.
In most of its decisions, the CA said it “commiserates with parties who find themselves in an unsatisfactory marriage, but unless it is proven with clear and convincing evidence that one or both parties are psychologically incapacitated, the Court must resolve in favor of the existence and preservation of the marriage.”
It cited various Supreme Court (SC) rulings which emphasized that “as marriage is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution, it is protected by the State and cannot be easily dissolved at the whim of the parties.”
It reminded the public: “Those who come to court in an attempt to sever the martial vinculum bears the heavy burden of showing that there is a serious ground to nullify the same. If the petitioner failed to discharge the burden, the presumption in favor of the validity of marriage must therefore prevail.”
In one petition, the CA ruled: “To reiterate, psychological incapacity must be more than just the alleged abusive behaviors of the spouses and difficulty in the performance of the marital obligations; it is not enough that a party proves that the other failed to meet the responsibility and duty of a married person.”
It also said: “To stress, a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. These differences do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and are not manifestations thereof which may be a ground for declaring their marriage void, absent any proof that these are manifestations of an incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological condition or illness.”
Again, citing SC rulings, the CA declared: “An acrimonious and unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.”
In granting the nullity of marriage and affirming the rulings of the regional trial court (RTC), the CA said: “In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, by refusing to allow a person or persons afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond.”
The CA said: “In this regard, it must be noted that, in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as it is void from the very beginning. To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.”
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage may be declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. It provides: “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
In 2021, the SC has ruled that psychological incapacity is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified. Thus, it said, expert opinion is not required.
In its precedent-setting decision, the SC declared: “Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called ‘personality structure,’ which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.”