SC decision relaxes rules on annulment of marriage

The Supreme Court has relaxed its guidelines on using psychological incapacity as grounds for nullifying a marriage, admitting it had set "rigid" guidelines on the matter in the past.

 

In a ruling written by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, the high court's Special First Division said its interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code in a September 2011 ruling "have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection."

 

Article 36 provides that “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.”

 

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before marriage that is permanent and prevents the party to be aware of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was about to assume.

 

The case stemmed from a case filed by a man who wanted his marriage nullified because his wife had allegedly neglected her parental duties due to gambling.

 

A trial court granted the man's request, only to be reversed by the Court of Appeals, prompting him to elevate the case to the high tribunal.

 

In a September 2011 ruling, however, the SC sided with the CA and upheld the marriage. In addition, the high tribunal set some guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code and declared among others that:

 

- the burden of proof too show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff; 

- the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified; 

- the incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the marriage; 

- such incapacity must be shown to be incurable;

- such incapacity must be grave enough to bring about disability of the party to fulfill essential obligations of marriage.

 

But in its latest ruling, the SC admitted these guidelines were too rigid, adding that the Family Code's provision on psychological incapacity should instead not be "so strictly and too literally" applied.

 

"Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according to its own fact in recognition of the verity that no case would be on 'all fours' with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court," the SC said in its latest ruling.

 

The SC even pointed out that based on the deliberations of the members of the Family Code Revision Committee that drafted  the law, they were not unanimous on the meaning of psychological incapacity and decided to adopt the provision “with less specificity than expected” in order to have the law “allow some resiliency in its application."

 

The SC expressed fears that a strict implementation of the rules on psychological incapacity would allow diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics, narcissists, among others, to stay married.

 

The SC clarified that by relaxing the rules, it was “not demolishing the foundation of families but is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations from remaining in that sacred bond.”

 

The SC admitted that the courts may be flooded by petitions for nullity of marriage following its decision but stressed that  there is no reason to be worried because of ample safeguards such as intervention of the government

 

While the SC said it is aware of the possible deluge of petitions for nullity of marriage due to its latest ruling, it said it would rather be more "alarmed by the rising number of cases involving marital abuse, child abuse, domestic violence and incestuous rape." —NB, GMA News