Unsatisfactory marriage

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 Bella and Mario.

Bella and Mario 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 to one another until they became sweethearts following years of courtship by Mario who found the hard-to-get style of Bella very attractive.

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

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

After marriage Bella agreed to live with Mario’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 coffer. She also refused to have any sexual contact with Mario.

Surprisingly, despite Bella’s claim of pregnancy, Mario and Bella’s officemates never observed any symptoms of Bella’s pregnancy. Then sometime in January 1999, after failing to come home for a day, Bella told Mario 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 Bella went back to her parents’ house. Mario tried to communicate with her but was unsuccessful.

So on September 11, 2000 Mario filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of the psychological incapacity of Bella. Mario claimed that Bella 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. Bella was also arrogant and haughty, rude and disrespectful to his mother. She never showed any respect and personal love for him and his family, Mario added. Thus he claimed that Bella 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 Bella failed to heed the summons, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of Mario declaring his marriage to Bella null and void because of Bella’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 Article 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. Bella’s failure to socialize, interact and endear herself to Mario’s family is not considered as a non-fulfillment of an essential marital obligation (Baccay vs. Baccay, G.R. 173138, December 1, 2010, 636, SCRA 350).

* * *

Books containing compilation of my articles on criminal law, 2 volumes, and Labor law, one volume, are now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium, 226 Ortigas Ave., Greenhills, San Juan, M.M. tel. 7249445. E mail [email protected].