Difficulty, not incapacity

Are acts of overspending and sexual infidelity sufficient proofs that a spouse is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations as to render his/her marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code (FC)? This is one of the issues resolved in this case of Ric and Tita.

Ric met Tita in 1978 at his aunt’s house where Tita was teaching Hawaiian dance to his cousin. Despite being five years younger, Ric found the dance teacher attractive and fell in love with her. He pursued Tita and they became sweethearts after three months of courtship. They eloped soon after when another girlfriend of Ric demanded that they get married allegedly because she was already pregnant.

Ric and Tita got married on September 4, 1978 before a Judge and they begot three children. To support his family Ric worked overseas as a seaman. He regularly sent money to Tita to cover the family living expenses and their children’s tuition. But many times when he would come home, he would be welcomed by debts incurred by his wife that he would settle to avoid embarrassment including the utility bills, the children’s tuition and even the amounts Tita collected as a sales agent of a plastic ware and cosmetics company which she failed to remit. Worse was that Tita missed paying the rent and the amortization for the house that he acquired for the family, so that the children had to be taken to Ric’s parents.

Then Ric also heard rumors that Tita went out on dates with other men representing herself as single. Then during one of his visits to the country, Ric noticed that Tita was pregnant. He tried to convince her to have a medical examination but she refused. Her miscarriage five months into her pregnancy confirmed his suspicion that the child could not be his because he had only three instances of sexual contacts with her and they were not consummated. Other than these, no other contacts with Tita transpired as he transferred and lived with his relatives after a month of living with her.

Finally on February 1, 1999, more than twenty one years after their wedding, Ric filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court asking for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground that Tita was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, prior to, at the time of and subsequent to the celebration of their marriage.

Ric alleged and testified that Tita was a squanderer and an adulteress. She was very extravagant, materialistic and demanding who mostly had her way in everything; had a taste for night life, was very averse to the duties of a housewife; was stubborn and independent, most unsupportive, critical and uncooperative; was unresponsive to hard work and sacrifices for the family; and was most painfully unmindful of him.

Then he also presented the psychological evaluation of a psychologist based on the information gathered from Ric and his eldest son, showing that Tita had a Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was the major factor that contributed to the demise of their marriage.

While the RTC annulled their marriage, said decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on appeal by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which claimed that the psychological evaluation of Tita based on the information of Ric and his son was not enough to establish Tita’s incapacity. But Ric still questioned the CA decision and insisted that Tita’s overspending and infidelity constitute adequate grounds for declaring the marriage null and void. Was Ric correct?

No. Ric’s characterizations of his wife as a squanderer and an adulteress are not sufficient to constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36, of the Family Code. Tita’s irresponsibility in managing the family’s finances and her spendthrift attitude that even resulted in the loss of the family house and lot do not rise to the level of a psychological incapacity required under the FC. At most they merely constituted difficulty, refusal, or neglect in complying with her marital obligations. Article 36 of the FC contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and assume marital obligations. Mere difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will on the part of a spouse is different from “incapacity rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness.

Tita’s infidelity, even if true, likewise does not constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36. For infidelity to constitute psychological incapacity, Tita’s unfaithfulness must be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely preventing her from discharging the marital obligations; there must be proof of a natal or supervening factor that effectively disabled or incapacitated her from being faithful to her spouse. Her dates with other men and her pregnancy by another man would not fill in the deficiencies, given the absence of an adverse integral element and link to her allegedly disordered personality. Moreover, it has not been shown that Tita’s alleged traits of infidelity existed at the inception of their marriage (Toring vs. Toring, G.R. 165821, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA, 389).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]