Love will always flow through our lives in this inconsistent, unknowable way, and we cannot press pause on the joyful bits, nor fast-forward the suffering.[1] Yet, in marriage, the reality is that a person may be truly psychologically incapable for the other[2] and it is best to sever the relationship as there is no point in trying to restore what is broken to begin with.
RE: Psychological incapacity
Psychological incapacity is a ground to declare a marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code, which states:
"ARTICLE 36. 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."
The provision speaks of two requisites. First is gravity, or that the person who contracted the marriage is psychologically incapacitated to assume the essential marital obligations and not merely refuses or neglects to do so because of difficulty or ill will. The second one, antecedence, requires that the incapacity exists at the time of the solemnization of the marriage, even if it manifests only thereafter.
RE: Revisited the concept of psychological incapacity
This should not be confused with divorce wherein the marital bond is severed for causes occurring after the celebration of the marriage.[30] Recently in 2021, the Court revisited the concept of psychological incapacity in Tan-Andal v. Andal.[31] There, we observed that what was first described in 1995 in Santos v. CA[32] as a "mental incapacity" that renders a person incognizant of the basic marital covenants, has since fortuitously evolved into the rigid criteria laid down in Republic v. Molina.[33] The Molina doctrine required the parties to prove not only gravity and antecedence stated under Article 36, but also incurability. The patties were then expected to present expert testimony to sufficiently prove that the root cause of the psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified.[34]
RE: New concept of psychological incapacity.
Later, the Court saw that viewing psychological incapacity from a medical perspective is unnecessary. As clarified in Marcos v. Marcos,[35] an actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to if the totality of the evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Besides, demanding proof of incurability is antithetical to Article 36 since the incapacitated spouse is not considered ill-equipped to remarry another person.[36] For this reason, the aspect of incurability is now approached in the legal sense. This contemplates of a situation wherein the person's personality structure manifests through clear acts of dysfunctionality which undermine the marital union and there must be clear and convincing proof that the incapacity is enduring or persistent with respect to a specific partner.[37]
Under Article 68 of the Family Code, the
"husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support."
Clearly, the law itself recognizes fidelity as the norm and a spouse should not be made to settle for anything less than absolute faithfulness from the other. This stems from the nature of marriage being a "special contract"[38] of an exclusive partnership between a man and a woman. While it is true that infidelity is a ground for legal separation,[39] the same may also be an indication of a psychological incapacity if, for the same reason, one is completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.[40]
Of course, this is not to say that the Court will intuitively declare a marriage void for a single act of marital indiscretion. Infidelity is not measured in terms of frequency. To be considered as a form of psychological incapacity, infidelity must satisfy the requirements of (1) gravity or severity, (2) antecedence, and (3) legal incurability or persistence during the marriage.
In Tan-Andal v. Andal,[51] the Court recognized that a person's behavior is determined not only by certain genetic predispositions but is also influenced by his or her environment. One that is particularly significant is the character of the parents as witnessed by a child during the formative years. Here, Dr. Garcia's psychiatric evaluation invariably shows that Antonio's proclivity to act on his sexual impulses is deeply rooted in a psychological condition that existed before the celebration of their marriage.
Contrary to the CA's observation, Dr. Garcia was able to demonstrate how Antonio's childhood and adolescent years – which were spent dealing with his philandering father and impervious mother, heavily affected the way he perceives romantic relationships. Antonio's father sired eleven children, with four other women, and was never discreet about his illicit affairs. Women would often look for his father and ask for financial support. As a child, Antonio thought this was the only role of his father. Dr. Garcia also noted that Antonio lacked the proper attention from his mother. This led to his attention-seeking demeanor and dependent personality trait which fuel his propensity to look for thrill in his relationships. For instance, Antonio recalled that after school, he would spend the rest of the day with a tutor. When he comes home at night, his mother would not be there as she would always play mahjong elsewhere. Growing up, he detested his father, but his mother would force him to show respect because they are being well provided for. Unfortunately, Antonio mirrored his father's ways. As a young adult, he engaged in several short-lived, overlapping relationships, including the one with Maribel. They dated when he still had another girlfriend. After two years, Maribel got pregnant, so he was forced to marry her. However, the marriage did not prove to be a catalyst for Antonio as he repeatedly committed marital indiscretions. Soon enough, the spouses fell into a pernicious cycle of discovery, reprisal, forgiveness, and then a new illicit affair. Clearly, Antonio's inability to maintain a monogamous relationship with his wife can be traced to his dysfunctional childhood.
2) Gravity and (3) Incurability:
Apart from the chronicity of Antonio's infractions, the Court also notes that there is no clear recognition on his part that fidelity is one of his essential obligations to his wife Maribel.
In the Psychiatric Evaluation, Dr. Garcia quoted Antonio saying:
"As a husband, I'm practically a good husband; but I would always be cheating on my wife."[52]
From his perspective, his illicit affairs are minor incidents which Maribel should have overlooked or dealt with differently. It also did not escape the Court's attention that Antonio has a distorted concept of a wife. During his interviews with Dr. Garcia, Antonio referred to Maribel as a "good housewife," "because she is not employed anyway."[53] He described Maribel as a dedicated mother "because she has no work, and she can always be with kids."[54] In return, Antonio "compensated her" by giving her a monthly allowance for household expenses. It is evident that Antonio considers himself superior to his wife. He does not consider Maribel as a partner, hence, there is a constant need for him to look for affection outside the marriage.
Moreover, Antonio blamed Maribel's nagging and tactlessness for the demise of their marriage, saying that her actions drove him away. He admitted that he was weak in not being able to control his womanizing, but Maribel is at fault for not doing anything to win him back. He did not perceive his wife's actions as a sign of despair or her own peculiar way of fighting for their marriage. Antonio focused on Maribel's anger and its effects on him. Antonio's failure to show sincere remorse for his blatant infidelity and the lack of desire to fix his ways to save their marriage clearly amount to psychological incapacity, which is grave in nature.
Further, Antonio's incapacity is incurable. It is persistent throughout the marriage and is specifically directed at his wife Maribel. Antonio did not have ample affection and commitment towards Maribel even at the outset. This was exacerbated by Maribel's insulting discourse and brazen attacks in response to Antonio's perennial womanizing and callousness. As explained by Dr. Garcia, the spouses lacked the ability to give each other sustained love, support, understanding, and respect which are expected from emotionally fit couples.[55] Surely, their distorted interaction and detestable communication pattern did not help to resolve their conflict[56] and instead resulted to marital disintegration. The totality of evidence thus points to Antonio's psychological incapacity as the cause to nullify his marriage to Maribel.
QUIOGUE, JR., vs. QUIOGUE AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 203992. August 22, 2022
LOPEZ, M., J.
FOOTNOTES
read here https://pastepeso.com/yl4ic3
FOLLOW US!
❤️ SUPPORT
⚖️ BLOG
🛒 SHOP
Informative,thank you sir.