BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – No less than the Philippine Constitution mandates the protection of marriage being an “inviolable social institution.”
While it is the foundation of the family that the government ought to protect, the Supreme Court had also acknowledged that “not all marriages are made in heaven” and that “imperfect humans more often than not create imperfect unions.”
Hence, when the other spouse failed to comply with his marital obligations, the tribunal had to step in and determine its validity.
In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court’s Second Division held that decades-long unjustified absence from the couple’s conjugal home may be considered evidence of “psychological incapacity” of the husband to comply with marital obligations.
In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the tribunal nullified the marriage of couple Leonora and Alfredo on the grounds of psychological incapacity.
A person’s psychological incapacity prevents him or her from fulfilling his marital obligations such as living together as husband and wife, observing mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and rendering mutual help and support.
In this case, the husband’s behavior changed not so long after they married in June 1984. He refused to provide financial support to his family and treated her wife merely as an occupant of their home rather than as his wife.
The hubby also had extramarital affairs. They eventually separated in 1994, and the husband married several women.
The wife later filed a petition to nullify her marriage, but the Regional Trial Court held that there was not enough evidence to prove the husband’s subsequent marriages. The Court of Appeals dismissed the wife’s petition, prompting her to go to the Supreme Court.
The high court declared their marriage void, ruling that the husband’s long absence from his marital home showed psychological incapacity, which made him unable to fulfill his marital duties.
Under Article 68 of the Family Code, spouses are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.
In the couple’s case, the husband’s infidelity, lack of support for his wife and children, and unjustified absence from his family indicate that he does not understand the responsibilities of a husband and father.
Nonetheless, the high court has held in its previous ruling that “marriage is not compulsory when in love; neither does it create love.”/PN
