Not grave and serious

This is another case of the alleged nullity of marriage based on the psychological incapacity of a party to comply with the essential marital obligations. One of the questions answered here is whether having harmonious relations with the in-laws is part of the essential marital obligations that a spouse has to comply with. This is the case of Ella and Julio.

Ella and Julio were schoolmates at a technological school where both took Electronics and Communications Engineering. After being introduced by a mutual friend in 1990, they became close until they became sweethearts following years of courtship by Julio, who found the hard-to-get style of Ella very attractive.

From then on Julio would invite Ella to their house to attend family gatherings and other festive occasions. But Ella would try to avoid Julio’s invitations and whenever she attended those occasions, Julio observed that Ella was aloof or snobbish. When Julio would talk to Ella about her attitude towards his family, Ella would promise to change but she never did.

Around 1997, Julio decided to break up with Ella because he was already involved with another woman. Ella, however, asked that they give some more time to their relationship as friends despite Julio’s relationship with the other woman. Later, however, even as mere friends they had romantic moments together that ended in sexual contact. Then sometime in November 1998, Ella informed Julio that she was pregnant with his child. Upon his mother’s advice, Julio grudgingly agreed to marry Ella.

After marriage Ella agreed to live with Julio’s family. But during all those times she remained aloof and would not go out of her way to endear herself to them. She would come and go as she pleased and never contributed to the family’s coffers. She also refused to have any sexual contact with Julio.

Surprisingly, despite Ella’s claim of pregnancy, Julio and Ella’s officemates never observed any symptoms of Ella’s pregnancy. Then sometime in January 1999, after failing to come home for a day, Ella told Julio that she had a miscarriage and was confined at the hospital where her sister was a nurse. Their confrontation led to a bitter quarrel that ended in their separation, as Ella went back to her parents’ house. Julio tried to communicate with her but was unsuccessful.

So on Sept. 11, 2000 Julio filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of the psychological incapacity of Ella. Julio claimed that Ella refused to have sex with him and would only mingle with a few individuals and never with his family even if they lived under one roof. Ella was also arrogant and haughty, rude and disrespectful to his mother. She never showed any respect and personal love for him and his family, Julio added. Thus, he claimed that Ella failed to perform the essential marital obligations due to her Narcissistic Personality Disorder as determined by a clinical psychologist, who also testified.

After hearing when Ella failed to heed the summons, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of Julio declaring his marriage to Ella null and void because of Ella’s psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations. Was the RTC correct?

No. Psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty” or a “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage. Article 36 of the Family Code should not be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond due to causes arising after marriage. It refers to a malady so grave and so permanent afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage that deprives said party of awareness of the essential marital obligations.

The essential marital obligations refer primarily to obligations of spouses towards each other and towards their children found in Articles 68 to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the FC. While harmonious relationship with the in-laws is ideal, particularly in this country’s cultural setup, the law does not consider it an essential obligation of either spouse. The incapacity should disable a party from rendering what is due in marriage, within the context of justice, not merely in the sphere of goodwill. Ella’s failure to socialize, interact and endear herself to Julio’s family is not considered as a non-fulfillment of an essential marital obligation (Baccay vs. Baccay, G.R. 173138, Dec. 1, 2010, 636, SCRA 350).