Before going to the case, let me correct a mistake first. Today is the 25th anniversary of the Philippine STAR, not last Monday, July 25, 2011 as I wrote in my article that day entitled “Silver Star.” Except for this error, everything else written is true and correct especially my big thanks and best wishes to the STAR as it continues to shine brightly like gleaming silver on its 25th year!
Our case now once more sets forth and clarifies the guidelines in the disposition of petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity especially in connection with the sufficiency of the cause of action. This is the case between Dina and her husband, Dino.
Dina and Dino were married on March 23, 1988. They have two sons Nilo and Mike. After 14 years of marriage, Dina already filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground that both of them were psychologically incapacitated to comply with their respective essential marital obligations.
Specifically, Dina alleged in her petition that Dino’s psychological incapacity is manifested by his lack of financial support; his lack of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his working wife; his consistent jealousy and distrust of his wife; his alternating moods of defiance and contrition; his refusal to assist in the maintenance of the family like the footing of the household needs and other family needs; his arrogance and insensitivity to his wife’s feeling whom he liked to humiliate and embarrass even in the presence of their children. In her petition Dina also cited the evaluation of a psychologist who found Dino to be suffering from passive, aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder that renders him immature and irresponsible.
On the other hand, Dina likewise alleged in her petition that she is effusive and displays her feelings openly and freely which change very quickly from joy to fury to misery to despair depending on her day to day experiences. She also alleged that her tolerance for boredom was very low; she was emotionally immature and cannot stand frustration or disappointment; she cannot delay to gratify her needs, gets upset when she cannot get what she wants while her self-indulgence lifts her spirit immensely. Dina also alleged that according to the psychologist who evaluated her, she manifested psychological aversion to cohabit with her husband and she suffers from a Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features.
In the same petition Dina also mentioned the psychological report of the psychologist who found that their hostility towards each other distorted their relationship and their incapacity to accept and fulfill the essential marital obligations led to the breakdown of their marriage. The report also declared that based on their psychological make-up, the psychological incapacity of both husband and wife to perform their essential marital obligations is grave, incorrigible and incurable.
On November 8, 2002, Dino filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the allegations therein are insufficient to support a declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. He claimed that the petition did not allege: the root cause of the psychological incapacity; the gravity of the illness as to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential marital obligations and the marital obligations that were not complied. Was Dino correct?
No. Contrary to Dino’s contention, the petition contains allegations sufficient to support a declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 of the FC and the guidelines set by this Court in Republic vs. Court of Appeals 335 Phil. 664. The petition alleged that the family backgrounds of both Dino and Dina which were clinically identified by the competent and expert psychologist are the root causes of the psychological incapacity. Also alleged in the petition is the report of the psychologist that Dina suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features while Dino suffers from Passive, Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorders which are grave, incorrigible and incurable illnesses as to bring about their disability to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. From the totality of the petition, it can also be gleaned that both of them failed to “live together as husband and wife, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support”.
Besides the guidelines requires that proofs must be presented by the parties first during the trial to determine whether or not the allegations are meritorious. Each case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on the basis of prior assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own attendant facts. The provision should be interpreted on a case to case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals. This cannot be complied with by dismissing the petition without trying the case on the merits (Aurelio vs. Aurelio, G.R. 175367, June 6, 2011)
* * *
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: jcson@pldtdsl.net