NULLITY OF MARRIAGE: Y, the Passive - Agressive and P, the Anti - Social

FACTUAL SCENARIO: 

Lady Y and Guy P were both in their late twenties when they met through a co-worker. There was instant attraction between them on their first date. Y found P to be a man of few words, quite reserved, seemed responsible, and intelligent. P was very sweet, always giving Y flowers and fetching her whenever she went. These qualities made it easy for Y to agree to be in a relationships with P shortly thereafter. 

For eight (8) months of dating, Y and P had a very mature relationship. They were very open to each other’s feelings and ideas and communicated well. P devoted most of his time to Y, and very seldom go out with friends unlike before they got engaged. Eventually, Y and P mutually decided to get married after a few months of preparation.  

After the wedding, Y and P rented a small one-bedroom apartment owned by and located right behind Y’s parents’ home. Y didn’t like the idea of living close to her parents, but she agreed to this arrangement since P promised that they would eventually move to a bigger place away from Y’s parents, once they are able to save money. 

Y and P had a very peaceful and happy conjugal life together. P liked that Y knew how to cook various meals and keep the house comfortable and in order. P, who worked as a shift manager in a call-center worked the night-shift, always coming home at the expected time. Y did her best to keep their expenses within their budget and have a little extra put away for savings. The couple decided that Y should stop working so that  Y could get pregnant right away.

Three (3) months into the marriage, Y became pregnant. She excitedly told P about her pregnancy, but P just smiled and said something like “really…?”.  In the weeks that followed, P became secretive and withdrawn. He refused to talk about things whenever Y asked him if something was wrong. P spent less time at home and whatever time he did spend at home he usually spent either just sleeping or playing computer games. P also started coming home late and drunk and neighbors also reported that P was taking drugs. Soon after, petty issues became intense verbal arguments that eventually turned physical, with P displaying erratic behavior, hurting Y even though she was heavy with a child. 

When Y was about 6-7 months pregnant, Y found a message on P’s mobile phone with the contact information listed as “HR-etel” and a message saying “I’m ready to finally let you go, and not worry about the baby”. Enraged when confronted, P pushed Y to grab his mobile phone away from her which caused Y to fall backwards on the floor.  Y sustained bruises on her arms, but refused to go to the police to report domestic abuse. To quell further troubles, Y’s parents came in and intervened in the couple’s quarrels and talked to P. They agreed that it was best that P leave Y alone for a while because Y was too stressed out and it could affect her pregnancy. 

After Y and P’s daughter was born, P moved back to their apartment.  However, weeks thereafter, Y observed that P returned to his usual habits - of being lazy and often inconsiderate. Even though Y was exhausted from lack of sleep because of breastfeeding the baby, P would usually come home later than expected, eat, play some tunes on his electric guitar in high volume while Y was trying to sleep. One stormy afternoon while P slept the entire day, Y, with her daughter, decided to go back to her parents’ home . For three (3) days that Y and baby were gone, P didn’t even bother to visit them just next door. That was the end of the one and a half years of marriage between Y and P. Before long, P started cohabiting with his then mistress and fathered a child out of wedlock.


COUNSEL'S EVALUATION: 

After three (3) years of physical separation from P, Y consulted this representation for a possible termination of her marriage to P. Counsel referred Y to a licensed clinical psychologist for the purpose of confirming that the physical manifestations - such that P has cracked up and suddenly became lazy, inconsiderate, irresponsible, lacks ambition, physically and verbally abusive, womanizer, liar and shows no remorse for his unacceptable actions, when Y became pregnant and after giving birth to their child - were indications that either or both of them are suffering from psychological incapacity that unable them to comply with the essential marital obligations of the marriage. Clinical psychologist found that both Y and P were suffering from a deep-seated, grave and incurable psychologically incapacity that made them unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, we filed a petition for nullity of marriage based on the provision of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which reads as follows:

“Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization”.


COURT FINDINGS and CONCLUSION: (quoted verbatim from the decision rendered by the Honorable Court on May 11, 2015)

 "Xxx viewed from the foregoing, Petitioner (Y) and Respondent (P) labor under an affliction that makes conjugal life unbearable. For Y, the mere thought of P makes her feel very angry and resentful.  P, at the time of the celebration of his marriage with Y, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, and such incapacity became manifest only after the wedding.

Again, with this statement by Y, the Court now goes back to the provision of Article 36 of the Family Code, thus:

 "Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party, who at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization."

Relevant to the above cited law, Clinical Psychologist in her testimony and clinical evaluation told the Court that both parties are suffering from psychological incapacity. Y is suffering from Passive - Agressive Personality Disorder while P on the other hand is suffering from Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

She further concluded that the psychological incapacity of both parties are characterized by juridical antecedence as it already started long before they entered marriage. Since it started early in life, it has been deeply embedded within their system and becomes an integral part of their personality structure, thereby rendering such to be permanent and incurable. It is egosyntonic, meaning, they are no longer directly affected by their behavior making them blinded to undergo treatment. With these premises considered, there is no doubt that reconciliation will no longer exist between the parties. Thus, the undersigned strongly recommends that their marriage be severed and declared null and void.

With the testimony of petitioner (Y) and the clinical psychologist, and based from the evidence as appearing in the record of the case, the Court believes that, petitioner (Y) preponderantly proved her petition for declaration of her marriage be granted in the AFFIRMATIVE.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the marriage between Y and P which was solemnized on a certain date and place as NULL and VOID in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code;

2. Allowing Y to use her maiden name at her option;

3. Ordering that the parties' minor child shall continue to be under the custody of Y subject to visitation by P;

4. Ordering the dissolution of their community property regime if there is any; and

5. Further directing the Local Civil Registrar and Civil Registrar General, Philippine Statistics Authority to annotate / write as "ANNULLED" on the Certificate of Marriage of parties in their respective Register (Book of Marriage) and to render the same without force and effect. "

MARRIAGE MATTER: Recording and Validity.

Facts:

B, widow, was married by a Solemnizing Officer to S, a woman who was previously married to U but had been separated for many years.  S and U were married prior to 1988 and they have been separated for much longer than seven (7) years.  The wedding was performed in June 2012 but apparently the Solemnizing Officer was told it could not be recorded and was not legal because S, had been married before with no annulment. 

Issues: (1) Should the marriage be recorded? 

           (2) What are the Requirements for Late Registration of Marriage?

           (3) Is the Marriage between B & S valid, considering that S was still married to U who abandoned her for more than seven (7) years?

Legal Advice:

(1) The marriage performed should be recorded. It shall be the duty of the solemnizing officer to report the marriage to the office of the Civil Registrar where the marriage was solemnized and the period of filing for registration depends on whether the Parties to the marriage has a marriage license or not. If with marriage license or ordinary marriage, the filing must be within fifteen, (15) days following the solemnization of marriage while in marriage exempt from license requirement, the prescribed period is thirty (30) days.

(2) Requirements for Late Registration of Marriage. In case the filing period had already lapsed and assuming that the original or duplicate copy of the Certificate of Marriage still exists, please comply with the following requirements:

1.  The solemnizing officer shall be required to execute and file an affidavit in support thereof, stating the exact place and date of marriage, the facts and circumstances surrounding the marriage and the reason or cause of delay.

2.  The submission of the application for marriage license bearing the date when the marriage license was issued, except for marriage exempt from marriage licenses shall be required.

The Facts did not indicate if the parties to the marriage have a license or not. But I presumed from that the Solemnizing Officer has performed the marriage without a marriage license under Article 34 of the Family Code - In case of a man and woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five (5) years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. I believe that the person who told the Solemnizing Officer not to record the marriage for not being “legal” has knowledge of a legal impediment to the marriage [i.e. the existence of the first marriage of S & U, which has not been judicially declared null, annulled or U had not been declared presumptively dead as required under the Family Code of the Philippines, the governing law for marriages since August 3, 1988 until the present].  

(3) Despite the alleged legal impediments, the marriage already performed should be recorded and should be deemed “valid” until it is annulled. The act of recording a marriage under the Civil Registration Law of the Philippines is ministerial and there is no discretion involved. In fact even if the legal impediment is made known or brought to the attention of the local civil registrar [during the application for marriage license under Art. 18  of the Family Code, the local civil registrar shall nonetheless issue the said license, unless ordered otherwise by a competent court] . Further, a recorded marriage is deemed “valid” and enjoys a presumption of “validity” and “regularity” of official functions. Thus, the alleged “void marriage” can only be declared terminated upon a petition to declare such marriage void filed by either the husband or the wife.   

The second marriage is deemed “valid” since U appeared to have become an Absentee Spouse that allowed “S” to remarry. Since the marriage between S & U was entered into prior to August 3, 1988, its validity is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines [and not by the Family Code of the Philippines] as regards the declaration of absentee spouse, to wit:

 “Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance, unless:

(1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or

(2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, of if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead according to Articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court.”

 Article 390 of the Civil Code states:

“Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.

The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.” 

Please note that under Art. 83 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee for the purpose of remarriage. The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. For the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven (7) consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that such former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

Under the Civil Code, the presumption of death is established by law and no court declaration is needed for the presumption to arise as death is presumed to have taken place by the seventh year of absence.

This is a gray area of the law, however, and either of the spouses later on (if they so desire) can still file a petition to declare their marriage void for being a “bigamous” marriage.