No basis

Is a spouse who has been declared psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for hiding his defect? This is one of the issues raised and answered in this case of Vic and Lisa.

Since Vic married Lisa, he seemed to give his career as a banker and businessman the first priority and was unable to relate not only as a husband to Lisa but also as a father to their only son. He appeared to have no inclination to make their marriage work such that they eventually separated. While Lisa tried to save the marriage, Vic was reluctant and refused to reconcile.

In fact Vic even filed with the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the alleged ground that both of them are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. Lisa however denied that she was psychologically incapacitated and specifically prayed for moral and exemplary damages in the total amount of P7 million because Vic deceived her into marrying him when he did not tell her of his psychological incapacity.

After trial, the RTC found from the testimonies of Lisa and two psychologists that the acts of Vic after the marriage were sufficient proof of his psychological  incapacity to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Thus it rendered judgment declaring his marriage to Lisa as null and void ab initio; awarding custody of their son to Lisa; ordering the liquidation of their conjugal assets; and ordering him to pay Lisa, moral damages in the amount of P2.5 million, exemplary damages of P1 million and attorney’s fees of P100,000.

In awarding moral and exemplary damages, the RTC said that as a result of Vic’s acts after their marriage which proved his psychological incapacity, Lisa suffered mental anguish, fright serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social humiliation. On the other hand, his act of filing the petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage compelled Lisa to litigate and hire a lawyer thereby entitling her to be reimbursed the attorney’s fees she paid. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Were the RTC and the CA correct in awarding moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees?

No. Psychological incapacity is no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly in-cognitive of the basic marital covenants that must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. It is the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.

In granting moral and exemplary damages the RTC and the CA considered Vic’s acts showing his psychological incapacity as willful acts. But acts characterized as products of psychological incapacity are beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability. Hence they cannot at the same time be considered as willful. By declaring Vic as psychologically incapacitated, the award of moral and exemplary damages on the same set of facts is negated.

Since psychological incapacity means that one is truly in-cognitive of the basic marital covenants or has a mental incapacity causing an utter inability to comply with the obligations of marriage, it removes the basis for the contention that Vic purposely deceived Lisa into marrying him. Thus the award of moral and exemplary damages is without basis. For the same reason, the award of attorney’s fees is also without basis (Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals and Buenaventura, G.R. 127358 and 127448, March 31, 2005).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]