“Marriage, if one will face the truth, is an evil but a necessary evil.” – Menander (343-292 BC)
The fundamental law of the land dictates that marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and protected by the state.[1] Pertinent with this constitutional provision, the Family Code of the Philippines[2] defines marriage as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with the law for the establishment of family and conjugal life.[3]
Despite the character of marriage as a permanent union, the courts continue to be clogged with cases seeking to nullify the marital status of the spouses premised on psychological incapacity. In view of this, Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended by Executive Order 227, provides that “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 Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning.[4] While it is true that psychological incapacity is one of the most abused grounds to nullify marriage, however, it eludes exact definition. Thus, the crux that continues to bedevil the courts is the divine standard of psychological incapacity to warrant a decisive conclusion whether the marriage be declared null and void.
The term psychological incapacity to be a ground for nullity of marriage refers to a serious psychological illness affecting a party even before the celebration of marriage.[5] It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of matrimonial bond one is about to assume.[6]
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.[7] The intention of the law is to confine the application of Art. 36 to the most serious cases of personality disorders, clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.[8]
The law necessitates that the husband and wife must live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.[9] The inability of any of the spouses to comply with their marital obligations due to some psychological disorder is a conduct constitutive of psychological inability. It must be stressed, however, that mere difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital obligation or ill will on the part of the spouse is different from incapacity noted from debilitating psychological condition or illness.[10]
It must also be noted that irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment by themselves also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity.[11]
Psychological Incapacity must be characterized by a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence, and c) incurability.[12] It must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; it must be incurable or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.[13]
Section 2(d) of the Rule on Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages[14] , the gist of which provides, that a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties are psychologically incapacitated. In addition, the complete facts should allege the physical manifestation, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.
It has been held that there is no requirement that either spouse should personally be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage.[15] What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition.[16] For indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.[17]
It must not be forgotten that one of the State’s declared policies and principles recognizes the protection of the sanctity of family life.[18] Public policy should aid acts intended to validate marriage and should retard acts intended to invalidate them.[19] It is within the interest of the State to preserve and cherish the family, as a social institution. Whatever is destructive to the family must be eschewed. The adoption of psychological incapacity as a ground for nullity of marriage must be viewed as manner to save the family relation from further destruction.
The condition of the State resembles that of the order of the family. Where the family could no longer be called a home nor function as a loving unit, the state is thereby slowly withered.
[1] Article XV Section 2, 1987 Philippine Constitution
[2] Executive Order no. 209
[3] Article 1, Family Code of the Philippines
[4] Azcueta vs. RP, May 26, 2009
[5] Ferraris vs. Ferraris, July 17, 2006
[6] Republic vs. Iyoy, September 21, 2005
[7] Antonio vs. Reyes, March 10, 2006
[8] Ting vs. Velez-Ting, March 31, 2009
[9] Article 68, Family Code of the Philippines
[10] Republic vs. Iyoy, supra
[11] Carating-Siayngco vs Siangco, 441 SCRA 422; Dedel vs. CA, 421 SCRA 461; Guillen-pesca vs. Pesca, 356 SCRA 588; Marcos vs. Marcos October 19, 2000
[12] Suazo vs Suazo, March 10, 2010
[13] Republic vs, Iyoy, supra
[14] A.M. No. 01-11-10-SC
[15] Marcos vs. Marcos, supra
[16] Najera vs. Najera, July 3, 2009
[17] supra
[18] Article II Section 12, 1987 Philippine Constitution
[19] Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA, 266 SCRA 324
No comments:
Post a Comment