Character flaws

This case of Lino and Amy once more explains the meaning of “psychological incapacity” as envisioned by the framers of the Family Code when they drafted Article 36 patterned after the Canon Law.

Lino and Amy got married on October 3, 1984.They were blessed with four children. But after 11 years of marriage, several incidents involving Amy happened which manifested a “negative marital behavior”.

Sometime in September, 1995, Amy arrived home at four o’clock in the morning. Her excuse was that she watched a video program in a neighboring town. But later she admitted that she already had a Palestinian boyfriend and slept with him. Lino nevertheless tried to persuade her to be conscientious of her duties as wife and mother. But his pleas were ignored and sometimes ended in violent altercations.

Despite all these incidents, Lino still tried to reconcile with Amy apparently because he still deeply loved her and wanted to save their marriage for the sake of their children. So with Amy’s commitment to reform, Lino was dissuaded from getting a legal separation. They finally reconciled and tried to start a new life as a couple.

A few months after however, Amy was back to her old ways. One day when Lino arrived home, Amy was nowhere to be found. He searched for her and found her in a nearby apartment drinking beer with a male lover. Later, Amy confessed that she had no more love for Lino. So they already lived separately.

Lino thought that Amy’s irresponsible, immature and immoral behavior is a sign of psychological incapacity to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. So he referred the matter to a psychologist for evaluation. After examination, the psychologist certified that Amy was indeed psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations, that the incapacity started when she was still young but became manifest only after marriage and that it was serious and incurable.

Thus Lino filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Amy on the ground of psychological incapacity. He claimed that Amy was immature, irresponsible and carefree and therefore psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations as manifested by her infidelity, negligence and nocturnal activities.

0n October 22, 1999, the RTC granted Lino’s petition and declared his marriage to Amy null and void based on the report of the psychologist. But on appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), this was reversed and set aside. The CA ruled that Amy’s alleged sexual infidelity, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility do not constitute psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code because the psychologist failed to identify the root cause thereof or that it was medically or clinically permanent and incurable. Was the CA correct?

Yes. Psychological incapacity required by Article 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedents and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party, antedating the marriage although the overt manifestations may emerge only thereafter. It must be incurable, or even if curable, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

In this case, Lino’s testimony did not prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of Amy’s condition. Even the psychologist failed to show the root cause of her psychological illness. The totality of the evidence failed to establish and explain the incapacitating nature of the illness. More importantly Amy’s act of living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage. It was not established that Amy’s unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a disordered personality which makes her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.

Doubtless, Amy was far from a perfect wife and good mother. She certainly had some character flaws. But these imperfections do not warrant a conclusion that she had a psychological malady at the time of marriage rendering her incapable of fulfilling her marital and family duties and obligations (Ligeralde vs. Patalinghug, G.R. 168796, April 15, 2010. 618 SCRA 315).

* * *

Books containing compilation of cases on Labor and Criminal Law are now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium, Ortigas Ave. Greenhills San Juan, Tel. 7249445 or e mail us at [email protected]