SC: Unjustified absence from marital home may be grounds for annulment
The Supreme Court has ruled that unjustified absence from the home for decades may be considered evidence that a person is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill marital responsibilities.
This came as the High Court nullified, in an 18-page decision promulgated on April 17, the marriage of a couple named Leonora Dela Cruz-Lanuza and her husband Alfredo Lanuza, Jr. on the grounds of psychological incapacity. This decision 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.
The SC records indicate that the couple married in June 1984 and subsequently had four children. The woman stated that despite a smooth start to their marriage, her husband began displaying signs of psychological incapacity including "refusing to provide financial support and treating Leonora merely as an occupant of their home rather than as his wife."
Alfredo also allegedly engaged in extramarital affairs.
In 1994, they separated, and the man went on to marry multiple times.
The woman later sought to nullify her marriage, but the regional trial court ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove his subsequent marriages. The Court of Appeals also dismissed her petition, leading her to appeal to the SC.
The ruling
In its ruling, the High Court cited Article 68 of Executive Order No. 209 or the Family Code of the Philippines, which states a "husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and render mutual help and support." It also indicated Article 220 which enumerates the obligations of parents to their children.
Hence, the SC found that "the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner sufficiently establish the psychological incapacity of respondent."
"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 rules read.
"These indicate that respondent did not understand his obligation as a husband and father," it added.
Moreover, a clinical psychologist's assessment indicated that the husband exhibited symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder with underlying borderline personality traits.
These traits were observed to stem from his childhood experiences and were seen as contributing factors to his difficulty in meeting his responsibilities.
"His personality disorder appears to have been fostered by how he was raised by his family as "he was deprived of appropriate parental supervision and guidance" and "his parents' lenient and tolerable attitude encouraged him to become extremely assertive," it said.
The ruling continued, "His psychological incapacity developed during his formative years and existed prior to his marriage to petitioner."
Art. 5 of the Family Code states that a marriage may be annulled over the following causes existing at the time of a couple's union: lack of parental consent, either party was of unsound mind, consent of either party was obtained fraudulently, consent was obtained forcefully, either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage, and either party was afflicted with a serious and incurable sexually-transmissible disease.