Unfit for marriage

(Continuation)

Yes. The RTC is correct despite the objections of the Solicitor General that (a) the psychiatric report of the psychologist was based solely on the information provided by Nita and was not based on an examination of Rod himself; and (b) there was no showing that the alleged psychological defects were present at the inception of marriage or that such defects were grave, permanent and incurable.

There is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity (Marcos vs. Marcos, 200 Phil 840). What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.

In this case, apart from being interviewed by the psychiatrist, Nita herself testified in court on the facts upon which the psychiatric report was based. When a witness testified under oath before the lower court and was cross examined she thereby presented evidence in the form of testimony. Significantly, Nita’s narration was corroborated in material points by the testimony of a close relative of Rod.

The psychiatrist with more than 40 years experience in the field of psychology in general and psychological incapacity in particular likewise testified in court to elaborate the link between the manifestation of Rod’s psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. She explained that persons suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder were those whose response to ordinary way of life was ineffectual and inept, characterized by loss of self-confidence, constant self-doubt, inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people. She added that the root cause of this psychological problem was a close identification with the mother who was the dominant figure considering that Rod’s father was a seaman and always out of the house. It was due to a strong and prolonged dependence on a parent of the opposite sex up to a period when it becomes no longer appropriate. This situation crippled the psychological functioning related to sex, self-confidence, independence, responsibility and maturity. She stated that this problem began during the early stages in his life but manifested only after the celebration of marriage due to marital stresses and demands. According to her, this kind of problem was also severe because he will not be able to carry on the responsibilities expected of a married person as it hampered and interfered with his normal functioning related to heterosexual adjustment.

Hence even if recent jurisprudence (Te vs. Te, G.R. 161793, February 13, 2009) says that notwithstanding the strict guidelines set in the case of Republic vs. Molina (268 SCRA 198), no case is “on all fours” with another case and that each case must be judged not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts, there has been no major deviation or paradigm shift from the Molina doctrine. And in this case, there is sufficient compliance with Molina to warrant the declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage under Article 36 because: (1) Nita has discharged her burden to prove the psychological incapacity of Rod; (2) the root cause of Rod’s psychological incapacity has been medically and clinically identified, alleged in the petition, sufficiently proven by expert testimony and clearly explained in the RTC decision; (3) Rod’s incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage; (4) Rod’s incapacity has been shown to be grave so as to render him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage; (5) Rod is indeed unable to comply with the obligations embodied in Article 68 to 71 of the Family Code; and (6) Rod’s incapacity is incurable as it is deeply ingrained in his system since his early years.

With respect to the concept of psychological incapacity, developments in science and medicine, changing social and cultural mores including the blurring of traditional gender roles must be taken into account. In this day and age, women have taken on increasingly important roles in financial and material support of their families. But this should not change the ideal that the family should be an “autonomous” social institution, wherein the spouses cooperate and are equally responsible for the support and well being of the family. In this case, the spouses from the very start failed to form themselves into a family, a cohesive unit based on mutual love, respect and support, due to the failure of one to perform the essential duties of marriage (Azcueta vs. Republic, G.R. 180668, May 26, 2009).   

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]