13/02/2023
A Valentine’s Day Special Case Digest:”An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.”
Natak-an kana bala sa imo Marriage?kag luyag mo ideclare na void kay ini para sa imo matawag nga unsatisfactory marriage?pwede bala ini? Nga tawgun Psychological Incapacity?
Kindly read the below decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines in the case of MARY CHRISTINE C. GO-YU, PETITIONER, v. ROMEO A. YU, RESPONDENT.
FACTS:
On October 21, 2009, herein petitioner filed with the RTC of Davao City, Branch 12, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Dissolution of the Absolute Community of Property against herein respondent, alleging that: she was a child who was well provided for and taken care of by her parents; she grew up to become a self-assured, independent and confident person; after finishing college at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, she came back home to the Philippines, worked in various companies, eventually joined their family business where she started as a secretary and worked her way to become the Senior Vice President who is in charge of the day-to-day operations of the company which has in its employ at least 700 personnel; she and respondent were casually introduced by the former's mother; several months after their first meeting, respondent asked her out on a date and, after a few months of dating exclusively, they got married on June 11, 1999; thereafter, they stayed at respondent's family home where petitioner had to contend with the constant meddling of her mother-in-law, as well as the latter's intrusion into their privacy; when she complained, respondent promised her that they will eventually move out; however, his promise was never fulfilled; petitioner had to make a lot of adjustments which entailed a lot of sacrifice on her part; she gave up some of the luxuries she had gotten used to when respondent's financial resources dwindled; she limited her social life and became withdrawn, maintaining only a small circle of friends; she took on the responsibility of single-handedly running their household and making all decisions as respondent was too busy in his involvement with his personal and social activities outside their house; after their wedding, the parties' sexual activity decreased considerably; petitioner was unable to conceive and even tried to convince respondent that she undergo in vitro fertilization but the latter refused; as a result, the parties grew apart as a married couple leading them to live separate lives even though they stay under the same roof; petitioner was eventually diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was found to exist before the parties' marriage; and the fact that petitioner is comfortable with her behavior and sees nothing wrong with it or the need to change renders treatment improbable. Petitioner sought the dissolution of the parties' absolute community of properties claiming that their marriage is governed by the provisions of the Family Code and that they did not enter into any prenuptial agreement.
In his Amended Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses, respondent denied the material allegations of petitioner's Petition and contended that: he offers his love and affection for petitioner and he desires for them to reconcile and save their marriage in the spirit of love, forgiveness and Christian values on marriage; and petitioner is not suffering from psychological incapacity and personality disorder, instead, her problem is behavioral in the sense that she has difficulty adjusting to married life and in dealing with respondent's relatives, especially his mother. As to the dissolution of the parties' absolute community of properties, respondent claimed that the properties adverted to by petitioner in her Petition are not properties of the parties' absolute community as these are merely held by respondent in trust for his siblings and relatives; in fact, petitioner had executed an attestation admitting that the properties she mentioned in her Petition are owned by respondent's siblings and other relatives
ISSUE:
“In the present petition, this Court is confronted with the main issue of whether or not the CA correctly held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied herein respondent's motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence. Stated differently, this Court has to rule whether herein petitioner was able to produce sufficient evidence before the trial court to make out her Case or to sustain a verdict.”
RULING:
### In her petition filed with the RTC, petitioner contends that her marriage to respondent is null and void from the beginning by reason of her psychological incapacity. However, the Court agrees with the CA that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent's Demurrer to Evidence because petitioner was unable to present sufficient evidence to show that she has the right to the relief she seeks.###
### Indeed, contrary to petitioner's claim that she is psychologically incapacitated to perform the ordinary duties and responsibilities of a married woman, the Court agrees with the observation of the OSG, as well as the respondent, that petitioner's documentary and testimonial pieces of evidence prove otherwise — that she is, in fact, fully aware of and has performed the essential obligations of a married individual.###
### The fact that she gradually became overwhelmed by feelings of disappointment or disillusionment toward her husband and their marriage is not a sufficient ground to have such marriage declared null and void.###
“The Court understands and commiserates with petitioner's frustration over her marital woes. However, "[t]o be tired and to give up on one's situation and on one's [spouse] are not necessarily signs of psychological illness; neither can falling out of love be so labeled. When these happen, the remedy for some is to cut the marital knot to allow the parties to go their separate ways. This simple remedy, however, is not available to us under our laws. Ours is x x x a limited remedy that addresses only a very specific situation — a relationship where no marriage could have validly been concluded because the parties, or [where] one of them, by reason of a grave and incurable psychological illness existing when the marriage was celebrated, did not appreciate the obligations of marital life and, thus, could not have validly entered into a marriage. Outside of this situation, this Court is powerless to provide any permanent remedy."
X X X
An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage. This Court has repeatedly stressed that Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. Resultantly, it has always been held that mere irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitute psychological incapacity.
Lastly, our Constitution "set out a policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic social institution, and the marriage was the foundation of the family. Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies with the plaintiff. Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals a situation where the parties, or one of them, could not have validly entered into a marriage by reason of a grave and serious psychological illness existing at the time it was celebrated, the Court is compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie."This is the case here.
HAPPY VALENTINE’s DAY Everyone❤️❤️⚖️
