Tag: Family and Civil Law

June 14, 2024

“Mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are still not accepted grounds that would warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Many couples in the Philippines have been trapped and endure the cruel consequences of their error in choosing a right spouse. Despite of abuses, infidelity, and abandonment, among other reasons (mostly committed by the husbands) Philippine congress deliberately avoided enacting divorce law due, mainly, to the influence of religion, especially the Roman Catholic Church and other conservative Christian denomination. Catholicism and Christianism were merely brought to the Philippines by its conquerors (the Spanish and Americans) and yet these countries which brought this faith to the Philippines have long allowed divorce in their respective jurisdictions. It has even become a comic story to tell that the only countries in the world where divorce is illegal are Vatican and the Philippines.

Anyhow, there are two brave gentlemen in the 19th Congress of the Philippines who are openly advocating the enactment of divorce law. Senators Robinhood Padilla and Raffy Tulfo said they are ready to hear all sides and that it should have a rigorous process to ensure that it will not be abused.

Indeed there are countless instances in the Philippines where a spouse wanted to get out of unwanted marriages. But they are prevented by the lack of legal process to terminate their marriages. Ours is a very strict mechanism of annulment, and, if I remember right the MCLE lecture of Atty. Katrina Legarda, of the thousands of annulment cases that reached the Supreme Court, not more than 5% of which have been granted. For the husbands or the wives who fell in wrongful partners this is not so good. Madalang pa sa patak ng ulan sa tag init.

Religion or church prevents them from staying out of erroneous partnership but I can’t imagine the help extended by the religion or the church while they are suffering from abusive and cruel marriage relationship. Is suffering the painful consequence of error in choice by virtue of the teaching saying “{W}hat therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”?[1]. Did God really intend this?   

After the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case Tan-Andal vs. Andal[2], I was of the impression that the stringent parameters in annulling marriages became a little bit relax. Unfortunately, what changed mainly is the holding that psychological incapacity is no longer a mental or personality disorder that should be proven by medical experts. It may now be proven by ordinary witnesses. However, the totality of the evidence must show that any one of the spouses’ personality made him/her impossible to understand and comply essential marital obligations. In this instance there must be witnesses or proofs that can attest to spouses’ personality and behaviour even before contracting marriage.

Following are the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of Carullo-Padua vs. Padua[3] to warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and grant a prayer for annulment of marriage.

1. Parameters used in the case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal in determining what constitutes psychological incapacity:

a. The psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration of marriage;

b. Caused by a durable aspect of one’s personality structure, one that was formed prior to their marriage;

c. Caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause; and

d. Proven by clear and convincing evidence.

2. Psychological incapacity is now neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven by 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 dear 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.
a. Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations. b. In this way, the Code Committee’s intent to limit the incapacity to “psychic causes” is fulfilled. Furthermore, there will be no need to label a person as having a mental disorder just to obtain a decree of nullity. A psychologically incapacitated person need not be shamed and pathologized for what could have been a simple mistake in one’s choice of intimate partner, a mistake too easy to make as when one sees through rose-colored glasses. A person’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his or her marital obligations should not be at the expense of one’s dignity, because it could very well be that he or she did not know that the incapacity existed in the first place.

3. Expert testimony or the testimony of a psychologist/psychiatrist is no longer required to prove psychological incapacity. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the spouses’ lives before they contracted marriage may testify on their observations as to the incapacitated spouse’s behavior. What is important is that the totality of evidence is sufficient to support a finding of psychological incapacity.

4. Juridical antecedence of psychological incapacity may be proven by ordinary witnesses who can describe the incapacitated spouse’s past experiences or environment while growing up which may have triggered one’s particular behaviour. The gravity of psychological incapacity must be shown to have been caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are still not accepted grounds that would warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

5. Tan-Andal also modified the requirement on incurability – that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must now be incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense. As explained, psychological incapacity must be:

“[…] so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. An undeniable pattern of such persisting failure [to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse] must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.”

6. Although that there is no requirement for one to be personally examined by a physician before he may be declared psychologically incapacitated because what is important is the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the party’s psychological incapacity, the totality of evidence to be presented must support a finding of psychological incapacity. The testimonies of ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the contracting the marriage should include behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.

7. Sexual infidelity and abandonment, are grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code and not for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

8. Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will. This incapacity consists of the following:

a. true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage;

b. this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring; and

c. the inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality.

9. Article 36 of the Family Code contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibilities and duties as a married person; incapacity must be so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.

10. 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 under the said Article. It must be stressed that an unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.

References