Irrevocable choice

This case once again shows the high regard that our law and the courts give to marriage as an inviolable social institution. This is the case of Dado, an overseas Filipino worker (OFW).

After eloping, Dado married Dida in a civil rite performed by the Mayor of their town. Several years later, the couple still had no offspring as Dida had two miscarriages. Eventually she had to undergo hysterectomy such that they could no longer have any child during marriage. Hence they just decided to adopt a baby girl.

It appeared however that during their cohabitation, Dida would always go out of their house and gossip with their neighbors thereby failing to take good care of their adopted daughter and neglecting the household chores. At other times the couple engaged in petty quarrel especially because Dado had no steady job yet.

After 16 years of marriage, Dado decided to work abroad. He got a job in Qatar and would remit his earnings regularly for the support of Dida and their adopted daughter. Unfortunately, while abroad, Dado learned that Dida was just wasting some of his remittances in gambling and having extra-marital affairs. So he decided to return to the Philippines and take care of his family.

Dado’s return however did not mend their strained marital relationship. In fact it became worse as eventually Dida abandoned their conjugal home. And later, Dado even learned that she was already living with another man. Thus Dado thought that their marital bond should already be dissolved so that he could be legally free to look for another, more suitable and ideal partner in life.

And so, 5 years after returning home from Qatar, Dado already filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Dida on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity to perform her essential marital obligations. He alleged and testified on Dida’s immaturity, her frequent gossips with neighbors, her leaving the house without his knowledge and consent, her refusal to do the household chores and to take care of their adopted daughter, and her incessant gambling. He also presented the neuro-psychological evaluation of a psychiatrist who conducted an interview of Dida only once and reported: that she has traits of a borderline personality which cannot be expected to have lasting and successful relationships as required in marriage; and that her behavior and attitude before and after marriage is highly indicative of a very immature and childish person, rendering her psychologically incapacitated to live up to and meet the responsibilities required in a commitment like marriage.

In her Answer/Manifestation, Dida did not interpose any objection to the petition but prayed that she be given her share in the conjugal house and lot. She did not also appear at the trial. So the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Dado’s petition and ruled that Dida’s infidelity, spending more time with friends and incessant gambling constituted psychological incapacity that affected her duty to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. It also relied heavily on the report of the psychiatrist which it said was the best evidence of Dida’s psychological incapacity. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Were the CA and RTC correct?

No. Dida’s supposed behavior was not adequately proven. It was only shown by the uncorroborated and self-serving testimony of Dado. What can be gathered from Dado’s scant evidence was Dida’s immaturity and apparent refusal to perform her marital obligations. Such immaturity and refusal did not constitute psychological incapacity. The only fact established here, which Dida even admitted, was her abandonment of the conjugal home to live with another man. But abandonment and marital infidelity are not grounds for the nullity of marriage. They are only grounds for legal separation under Article 55 (8) and (10) of the Family Code (FC). There was no showing here that they were manifestations of a disordered personality which amounts to psychological incapacity to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.

The psychiatrist’s evaluation also cannot be heavily relied upon by the lower courts. Aside from a paucity of factual foundation, it was ostensibly vague about the root cause, gravity and incurability of Dida’s supposed psychological incapacity. It only established her childishness, immaturity and her refusal to perform her obligation as a wife which do not constitute psychological incapacity unless shown that they were manifestations of a disordered personality rendering her completely unable to perform her marital obligations (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 159594, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 33)

So before plunging into this lifelong commitment, man and woman should rely not only on their hearts and feelings but on their heads and rational thinking. Love after all is a decision.

Notice: Books containing compilation of my articles on Criminal Law (Vol. I and II) and Labor Law, are now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium 226, Ortigas Ave. San Juan. tel 7249445.

Email: [email protected]