SC to courts: Don’t be too strict on ‘psychological incapacity’

MANILA – The Supreme Court has ordered courts not to be too strict in interpreting the provision on psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriages.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, the high court’s special first division said previous rulings “have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection.”

Article 36 of the Family Code is “so strictly and too literally” applied, the high court said. The provision states that “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.”

The high court said lower courts should closely examine the facts of a particular case before it, rather than interpreting the provisions’ guidelines’ to the letter.

“Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity ‘not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according to its own fact’ in recognition of the verity that no case would be on ‘all fours’ with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage,” it said.

It said a rigid interpretation of the rules would mean allowing sociopaths, schizophrenics, narcissists and the like to stay in a marriage.

The latest decision should not be taken to mean that the high court is demolishing the foundation of families.

Instead, the high court said the decision is “actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations from remaining in that sacred bond.”

It said it expects many petitions for the nullity of marriages to be filed, with the latest ruling moving it front and center.

The high court said, however, that it should rather “be alarmed by the rising number of cases involving marital abuse, child abuse, domestic violence and incestuous rape.”

It said there are enough safeguards to protect families from unnecessary petitions, such as the intervention of the government. The Office of the Solicitor General represents the government in cases of annulment, etc. –ABS-CBNnews.com