Psychological incapacity as a ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity, to the most serious cases of personality disorder or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. To prove this ground, is it necessary to present the expert opinion of psychologists and psychiatrists or the medical examination of the spouse concerned? This is one of the issues raised in this case of Nardy and Nora.
Nardy and Nora were married on June 4, 1970. After their marriage they lived together in an apartment but their union did not produce any child. In 1972 Nora left for the United States to work as a nurse because she wanted to help her husband build a big house for them in a plush subdivision. Since Nora really wanted to live in the Philippines she came back in 1974. But she stayed only a few months and left for the US again after learning of Nardy’s infidelity. Nardy even consented to her trip back to US. Thereafter she made periodic visits to the Philippines but seldom saw Nardy because of Nardy’s extra marital affairs with two different women. She even learned that Nardy had a child with one and two children with the other woman. In 1989 when she was already a US citizen she returned once more to the Philippines.
Finally, after 24 years of marriage, Nora filed a petition for legal separation. Nardy, on the other hand, filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of their marriage anchored on the alleged psychological incapacity of Nora. To support his complaint Nardy alleged that Nora had not borne him any child because she was “horrified” by the mere thought of having children. Furthermore, Nardy alleged that Nora abandoned him by living in the US and had in fact become an American citizen.
On the other hand, Nora denied that she refused to have a child. She portrayed herself as one who loves children as she was a nurse by profession and that she would from time to time borrow Nardy’s nephews and nieces to care for them. She faulted Nardy’s infidelity for the breakup of their marriage. In fact, Nora said that he had two affairs with different women and he begot at least three children with them.
After trial, the court dismissed Nardy’s complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage to Nora. The court said that Nora was not psychologically incapacitated or that she failed to comply with her marital obligations. According to the court, there was no evidence of psychological incapacity on the part of Nora to carry out the ordinary duties required in married life. Neither has it been shown that there was an incurable defect on the part of Nora. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). According to the CA, mere refusal of Nora to bear a child is not equivalent to psychological incapacity, since even if such allegation is true, it is not shown or proven that this is due to psychological illness. It is not enough to prove that a party failed to meet her responsibilities and duties as a married person; it is essential that she must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological not physical illness, the CA concluded.
Nardy questioned this ruling. He contended among others that expert opinion of a psychologist or psychiatrist is not necessary to prove the psychological incapacity of Nora especially considering that she is already a resident of the US and living far away for the Philippines for more than 20 years. It is enough he said that Nora deliberately and obstinately refused to comply with the essential marital obligation to live and co-habit with him and to procreate children. Was Nardy correct?
No. It is true, as Nardy noted that presentation of expert opinion is not a vital and mandatory requirement and that Nora still had to be examined by a physician in order for her to be considered psychologically incapacitated.
What is important however is the presentation of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. If the totality of the evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete facts showing the physical manifestations as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged. The rule is that the facts alleged in the petition and the evidence presented, considered in totality, should be sufficient to convince the court of the psychological incapacity of the party concerned.
In this case, Nardy failed to substantiate his allegation that Nora is psychologically incapacitated. His allegations relating to her refusal to cohabit with him and to bear a child has been strongly denied and disproved by the evidence. Besides mere refusal of Nora to bear a child with him is not equivalent to psychological incapacity, since even if such allegation is true, it is not shown or proven that this is due to psychological illness. In fact it was more due to Nardy’s infidelity which was not denied. Furthermore, the acts and behavior of Nora that Nardy cited occurred during the marriage, and there is no proof that Nora exhibited a similar predilection even before or at the inception of the marriage (Zamora vs. Court of Appeals et. al., G.R. 141917, February 7, 2007).
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net or jose@sisonph.com