Problematic

Under Article 36 of the Family Code (FC), a marriage may be declared void because of the psychological incapacity of a spouse to take cognizance of, and to assume the basic marital obligations. However, mere failure or neglect to assume responsibility and duty as a married person does not necessarily amount to psychological incapacity as shown in this case of Becky and Jim.

On December 21, 1968, Becky married Jim in a lavish wedding ceremony. But shortly thereafter, Becky started becoming disillusioned because their married life was marred by bickering, quarrels and recriminations. She was the only one who earned a living and took care of their three children as Jim failed to obtain a college degree and a decent job. He did nothing but eat and sleep all day and spend time with friends without in any way helping Becky even in taking of their children when they were babies. When he found a job, he was not able to stay long in it. And when he ventured into several businesses, all of them failed.

Becky on the other hand was able to rise from the ranks of the company where she worked and bought properties with hardly any help from Jim. Consequently, Jim became insecure and jealous and would get mad every time he would see Becky talking to other people including Becky’s relatives.

After 35 years of marriage, Becky could no longer bear her married life with Jim. She consulted a psychiatrist who found Jim to be suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder and thus concluded he was indeed psychologically incapacitated.  So Becky filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of Jim’s psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations particularly, observing mutual love, respect and fidelity and rendering mutual help and support.

But the RTC dismissed her petition. It rejected the negative effect of Jim’s Dependent Personality Disorder. The RTC said that Jim indeed had many faults, was deficient in providing financial support and failed to earn his keep. But the fact that they had lived together for 35 years and were able to raise three children into adulthood and that Becky even succeeded in her job and accomplished many things, belied Jim’s psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligation. According to the RTC, these facts even show that Jim can be relied on for love, fidelity and moral support. The Court of Appeals on appeal by Becky, affirmed the RTC decision. Were the RTC and the CA correct?

Yes. The incapacity or inability to assume the essential marital obligations must be equivalent to a psychological abnormality and not merely difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital obligation or ill will. Jim’s refusal to help care for the children, his neglect of his business ventures, inability to find a steady job and his alleged unbearable jealousy may indicate some emotional turmoil, but they do not show psychological abnormality. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness.

To be sure, Jim could have been more helpful, and could have made life easier for his wife, had he perhaps exerted a little more effort. The fact that he did not however does not mean that he is psychologically incapacitated to discharge his marital obligations.

Certainly the marriage was beset with difficulties or marred by bickering, quarrels and recriminations. But all marriages undergo the same trials at one point or another with some going through more rough patches than others. Becky and Jim’s marriage may indeed be problematic and even tumultuous. But since they had gone through 35 years together as husband and wife indicates that they can, should they choose to, work through their problems (Yambao vs. Republic, G.R. 184063, January 24, 2011).

*  *  *

E-mail at: [email protected]