Mama’s boy and psychological incapacity

A  marriage may have failed because  a seafarer acted as a Mama’s boy, but it cannot be declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. 

One of the unfortunate consequence of seafarers working away for several months is the falling out of marriage.  

For couples desperate to find a way out of their troubled marriages,  some choose to undergo  trying and tedious legal process where  they  have to incur many expenses: the cost of litigation, filing fees, and even the professional fees.

The protagonists in most cases  are in reality simply unwilling to work out a solution for each other's personality differences, and have thus become overwhelmed by feelings of disappointment or disillusionment toward one another. Sadly, a marriage, even if unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage .

In Republic vs. Cabantug-Baguio, (G.R. No. 171042,June 30, 2008), the wife  noticed after their marriage  that every time she conversed with the seafarer , he always mentioned his mother and his family, and she soon realized that he was a mama’s boy. And she noticed too that when she would call up the seafarer  at his parents’ house and his mother was the one who answered the call, she would deny that he was around.

On the insistence of his mother, the seafarer’s  monetary allotment was shared equally between her and the wife. Later on, the seafarer  declared in his employment records that he was single and named his mother as principal allottee.

Less than three years  after they contracted marriage, the wife filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of the seafarer’s  psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital duties and obligations under Articles 68-70 of the Family Code

In his medical report, the  clinical psychologist noted  that the seafarer’s  personality disorders including his being a mama’s boy are serious, grave, existing already during the adolescent period and incurable . He concluded that the seafarer appeared to be dependent upon his family and unable to establish a domicile for his family and to support his family.

In dismissing the case,  the Supreme Court ruled that the mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity. Nor does failure of the parties to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons

It is essential that the parties to a marriage must be shown to be insensitive to or incapable of meeting their duties and responsibilities due to some psychological (not physical) illness, which insensitivity or incapacity should have been existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage even if it becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

It is downright incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, which renders a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity. The root cause thereof must be medically or clinically identified. There must thus be evidence to adequately establish the same.

 Psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (a) gravity (i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage); (b) juridical antecedence (i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage); and (c) incurability i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. (Cruz vs. Cruz (October 11, 2017 G.R. No. 201988),

The Constitution sets out a policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Marriage, an inviolable institution protected by the State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties.

 In petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.

(Atty. Gorecho heads the seafarers’ division of the  Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan  law offices. For comments, email info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786)

Annulment and Legal Separation in the Philippines

 

One of the unfortunate consequence of seafarers working away for several months is the falling out of marriage.  For couples desperate to find a way out of their troubled marriages,  some choose to undergo  trying and tedious legal process where  they  have to incur many expenses: the cost of litigation, filing fees, and even the professional fees. 

Essential and Formal requisites of marriages

 It should be noted that for a marriage to take place, there are essential requisites and formal requisites which must first be met. The essential requisites of marriage are: 1) legal capacity of the contracting party, who must be male and female, and 2) consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer (Article 2, Family Code [FC]).  The formal requisites of marriage are (1) authority of the solemnizing officer, (2) a valid marriage license (except in specific instances mentioned under Chapter 2 of the Family Code), and (3) a marriage ceremony which takes place with both of the contracting parties appearing before the solemnizing officer and declaring that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. (Article 3, FC).

Although many loosely call all actions for terminating marriage in the Philippines as annulment, the truth is there are several actions that may be instituted to terminate the marriage.

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Grounds rendering a marriage “void ab initio” are:

1. those contracted by any party below 18 even with the consent of parents
   or guardians;
2. those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriage unless either or both parties believed in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
3. those solemnized without a marriage license except those expresslyexempted by law to secure a marriage license;
4. those bigamous or polygamous marriages;
5. those contracted through mistake of one of the contracting parties as to the identity of the other;
6. incestuous marriages as defined in Article 37 of the FC; and
7. void marriages by reason of public policy (i.e. between step-parents and step-children, between adopting parent and adopted child).

An action for the declaration of the absolute nullity of marriage may be instituted at any time and shall not prescribe (Art. 39, FC).

It must be emphasized that although the marriage is void from the beginning, a party cannot unilaterally contract a subsequent marriage with the thought in mind that the previous marriage was invalid.  For example, A and B contracted a marriage with a fake marriage license.  Spouse B who knew that the marriage license was fake contracted a second marriage with C.  Is the marriage between Spouse B and C valid? No!  The marriage between A and B should have first been declared null and void by the Court before Spouse B and C can marry.

Annulment of Marriage

An annulment  has the effect of considering the marriage as“void ab initio”, a latin term to meaning the marriage NEVER existed at all.  The grounds for annulment are often pertaining to the absence of, or defect in, one of the essential or formal requisites of marriage. Although it has a different effect in how it considers the marriage (null and void) after annulment, it has however the same effect in terms of capacitating the parties to remarry.

In an Action for Annulment of Marriage, the following marriages may be annulled:

1. that the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over, but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
2. that either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
3. that the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
   afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely
   cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
4. that the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
5. that either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
6. that either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable.

 Unlike in the first set of grounds above mentioned, an action for the annulment of marriage prescribes; in case of lack of consent, until the party filing for annulment reaches 21;  in case of insanity until the death of either party or the lucid interval of the insane spouse; in case of fraud, force, intimidation or undue influence, incapacity to consummate the marriage or knowledge of the sexually-transmissible disease, within five years from the occurrence of the fraud, force, intimidation or undue influence, incapacity to consummate the marriage or knowledge of the sexually-transmissible disease.

Legal Separation

Legal separation is merely the separation of spouses from bed and board. (Article 63 of the Family Code) While it permits the partial suspension of marital relations, the marriage bond still exists as the marital bonds are not severed as in the case of annulment or petition for nullity.  The grounds for legal separation are:                                                                                                      

1. Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
2.  Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
3. Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
4. Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned;
5. Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
6. Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
7. Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippine sor abroad;
8. Sexual infidelity or perversion;
9. Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or
10. Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year. (Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines)

.