Decades-long unjustified absence from a marital home may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, the Supreme Court (SC) said in a ruling.
In an 18-page decision, the SC Second Division nullified the marriage between a couple on the ground of psychological incapacity as it reversed and set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA).
“Respondent’s infidelity, failure to give support to his wife and children, and unjustified absence from his family are all indicative that he is not cognizant of the duties and responsibilities of a husband and a father,” the high court said.
According to the SC, the couple were married in June 1984 and had four children together. The woman said that though their married life started smoothly, her husband later started showing signs of psychological incapacity.
The wife said her husband did not provide food for the family and treated her as an ordinary occupant of the house and not as his wife. He also allegedly engaged in illicit affairs.
This led to their separation in 1994, after which the man married several others.
The woman later filed a petition to nullify her marriage, but the regional trial court held that there was not enough evidence to prove his other marriages. The CA also dismissed her petition, prompting her to go to the SC.
In its ruling, the SC cited Article 68 of the Family Code which states that a “husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.”
It also cited Article 220, which enumerates the obligations of parents to their children.
Due to this, the SC said it found that the pieces of evidence presented by the woman sufficiently established the psychological incapacity of the man.
“Based on the facts, the respondent left his family in 1994 and appears to have contracted marriage several times, with different women. He never gave financial support to his children and only visited them once, for less than an hour,” the SC said.
“These indicate that respondent did not understand his obligation as a husband and father,” it added.
A clinical psychologist found that the husband was suffering from narcissistic personality disorder with underlying borderline personality traits. The psychologist found that this developed from his childhood and it correlated to his inability to fulfill his obligations.
“This shows that there is juridical antecedence. His psychological incapacity developed during his formative years and existed prior to his marriage to petitioner,” the SC said. —KBK, GMA Integrated News
