By Obiter07
Divorce is not legal in the Philippines. But the law has devised a way out for couples who cannot stay together under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of a mental state termed as “psychological incapacity”:
“A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization (As amended by E.O. 227).”
Psychological incapacity appears to be a catch-all phrase. It is not susceptible to exact definition, which was the intent of the framers of the law.
“The Committee did not give any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that the giving of examples would limit the applicability of the provision under the principles of ejusdem generis. Rather, the Committee would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law.” SALITA vs. MAGTOLIS, et al,.[G.R. No. 106429. June 13, 1994.]
The Supreme Court, however, has set high standards in order to invoke this ground to annul a marriage. The inability to have sexual relations or a refusal to live together for a period of five (5) years does not suffice:
“Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with him, for more than five years are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life. xxx Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment. We should continue to be reminded that innate in our society, then enshrined in our Civil Code, and even now still indelible in Article 1 of the Family Code. The above provisions express so well and so distinctly the basic nucleus of our laws on marriage and the family, and they are no doubt the tenets we still hold on to. The factual settings in the case at bench, in no measure at all, can come close to the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage. Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem. SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. [G.R. No. 112019. January 4, 1995.]
Being married to someone who is mentally unstable, an addict, an alcoholic, a homosexual or a lesbian is not enough and may merely provide grounds for legal separation. The foregoing “disorders” must be serious before they can be invoked.
“The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state of a party being of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions of the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity.” [Ibid.]
While a refusal to live together was not found to be sufficient ground for annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity, a “senseless and protracted refusal” to have sexual relations may be.
“xxx If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity.” Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is “To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage.” Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity. CHI MING TSOI vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. [G.R. No. 119190. January 16, 1997.]
Being at odds or arguing all the time does not an annulment make.
“On the other hand, in the present case, there is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of ‘irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness. The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not get along with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility, not psychological incapacity. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. [G.R. No. 108763. February 13, 1997.]
Despite the stringent standards set by the Court, this ground can be and is being abused. Hence, the Court has laid down its guidelines for annulment which includes the participation of experts, the prosecuting attorney, and the Solicitor General. A marriage of two people is now crowded with strangers.
Thus, the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code were set in REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. [G.R. No. 108763. February 13, 1997.] -
A spouse may have said he was crazy for you before. But for you to get out of a marriage, he may need to be certified as one.(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be -
(a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint,
(c) sufficiently proven by experts and
(d) clearly explained in the decision.(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
No comments:
Post a Comment