Total & Absolute Indifference

Facts:

H marries W. During the marriage, H and W never had sexual intercourse, on account of H refusal. They slept together in the same room and on the same bed for almost one (1) year. Nevertheless, during this period, there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. W did not even see her husband's private parts nor did he see hers.

Medical examination on both H and W has been conducted. It reveals that B is still a virgin despite being married to H. W claims that H is impotent, a closet homosexual as he never show his penis. W had observed H using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. And that H married W, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain his residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man.

On the other hand H countered that if their marriage will be annulled by reason of psychological incapacity, the fault lies with W. H admitted that there was no sexual contact between them for almost one year and until their separation. However, the reason for this, according to H, was that everytime he wants to have sexual intercourse with W, she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts, she always removed his hands. H claims that he forced his wife to have sex with him only once but he did not continue because she was shaking and she did not like it. So H stopped.

Issue: Whether or not the marraige between H and W is valid.


Ruling:

The marriage is VOID. H could have discussed with W or asked her what is ailing her, and why she balks and avoids him everytime he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. H never did. At least, there is nothing in the record to show that he had tried to find out or discover what the problem with his wife could be. What he presented in evidence is his doctor's Medical Report that there is no evidence of his impotency and he is capable of erection. Since it is H's claim that the reason is not psychological but perhaps physical disorder on the part of W, it became incumbent upon H to prove such a claim.

"If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity."

Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is "To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage." Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

As aptly stated by the respondent court,

"An examination of the evidence convinces Us that the husband's plea that the wife did not want carnal intercourse with him does not inspire belief. Since he was not physically impotent, but he refrained from sexual intercourse during the entire time ( almost one year until their separation) that he occupied the same bed with his wife, purely out of sympathy for her feelings, he deserves to be doubted for not having asserted his rights even though she balked (Tompkins vs. Tompkins, 111 Atl. 599, cited in I Paras, Civil Code, at p. 330). Besides, if it were true that it is the wife who was suffering from incapacity, the fact that defendant did not go to court and seek the declaration of nullity weakens his claim. This case was instituted by the wife whose normal expectations of her marriage were frustrated by her husband's inadequacy. Considering the innate modesty of the Filipino woman, it is hard to believe that she would expose her private life to public scrutiny and fabricate testimony against her husband if it were not necessary to put her life in order and put to rest her marital status.

"We are not impressed by H's claim that what the evidence proved is the unwillingness or lack of intention to perform the sexual act, which is not psychological incapacity, and which can be achieved "through proper motivation." After almost ten months of cohabitation, the admission that the husband is reluctant or unwilling to perform the sexual act with his wife whom he professes to love very dearly, and who has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his alleged approaches, is indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder that constitutes psychological incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants within the contemplation of the Family Code.”

While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually the "spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order" (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say "I could not have cared less." This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.

It appears that there is absence of empathy between H and W. That is - a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.

The Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the studied judgment of respondent appellate court.

Guidelines, Interpretations & Application in Nullity of Marriage (Philippines)

The following are the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code for the guidance of the bench and the bar:

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it “as the foundation of the nation.” It decrees marriage as legally “inviolable,” thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be “protected” by the state.

The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological -- not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis,[13] nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:

“The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature.”

Prefatory

Annulment or declaration of nullity of marriages is not an easy task for lawyers like me. While there are rules of procedures, substantive laws, and applicable jurisprudence by our Supreme Court to guide me and other lawyers, still we have to contend with the tedious task of bearing with the emotions of both parties, let alone their financial capacity to sustain the litigation expenses consequential to such proceedings. Moreover, in every case of that nature, each of them presents different factual scenarios which us lawyers must also consider in drafting, preparing, and making an intelligent petition, sufficient to warrant the prayer for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage as the case may be.

However, since our laws, although not directly allowing divorce, somehow see the possibilities of subsequent flux during the subsistence of a marriage, brought about by inability to procreate, failure to consummate the marriage, individual peculiarities boiling down to psychological and emotional disorders, and other circumstances affecting the stability of a married life. Thus, we have the provisions of our Family Code relating to annulment and/or declaration of nullity of marriage.

We must also understand that marriage is a legal concept. Once two individuals (man and woman) get married, they have a lifetime contract with each other, a juridical tie, which can only be severed through a valid judicial proceedings. These married individuals, therefore, cannot, by mere agreement (even in writing) and on their own accord, cancel their marriage.

Judicial proceeding is a must in order to end the marriage ties of an unstable marital life. With this, our courts will have the occasion to judiciously determine the grounds for such severance of marriage ties, in line with the constitutional policy of preserving the solidarity of a family.

What is the Difference Between Legal Separation and Annulment?

A lot of people have been asking about the differences between Legal Separations and Annulment. Lots of disgruntled husbands and wives are trying to find some ways on how to be able to legally separate from each other and/or to nullify their marriages.

We would like to make this as a simple guide on the differences between Legal Separations and Annulment in the Philippines.

What is Legal Separation?

Legal Separation is a as the term implies separation of spouses legally but they are still considered married to each other, and, thus, may not remarry.

What are the Grounds for Legal Separations?

1. Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner. ("child" includes those child by nature or by virtue of adoption).

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 Philippines or abroad.

8. Sexual infidelity or perversion.

9. Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner.

10. Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.

For annulment of marriages in the Philippines, you could refer to the earlier write-up posted on this site.

http://powerservelegal.blogspot.com/2008/06/on-annulment-of-marriages-in-phil.html

Most of the time, spouses having marital problems decides to have their marriages nullified and voided since there is still a chance for them to remarry. However, for legally separated spouses, there is no way that they could remarry.