Personality disorder grounds to nullify marriage — SC

Metro Manila, Philippines - A personality disorder that would affect a person’s ability to love or emotionally connect with a partner can be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and grounds to nullify a marriage, according to a Supreme Court (SC) decision.

The SC Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of a regional trial court (RTC) where it declared a couple’s marriage void. In that case, the husband submitted a clinical diagnosis of his passive-aggressive personality disorder among his supporting evidence.

According to the SC press release, the couple in trial met in 1999 and were secretly married in 2002. According to their narrative, the partners were only “physically together” for about five years as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia while the wife remained in the Philippines. They lived together occasionally and had two children - a son in 2007 and a daughter in 2012.

It said the relationship was “marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.”

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage and also submitted a psychologist diagnosis which supported his argument that it was difficult for him to maintain close relationships.

The RTC initially granted the petition but reversed its decision after the Office of the Solicitor General raised concerns about due process. The Court of Appeals later denied the husband’s appeal.

However, the SC ruled in his favor, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

The high court said the incapacity could manifest long after the wedding and a spouse who initially “appears capable” may later show signs of inability rooted to a disorder.

Citing Article 36 of the Family Code, the court noted that a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties - even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding.

“While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship,” the SC said. “Loving one’s spouse is an important, if not the most important, essential marital obligation.”

The SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

The court also ruled that the husband “no longer loved his wife, and that this inability to love her is rooted in his personality.”

The decision had a dissenting opinion from two associate justices - Joseph Lopez and Antonio Kho - on the fact that the husband failed to show that his passive-aggressive personality disorder existed before their marriage.

According to the court, Lopez stated that by the husband’s own account, he was a “loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse…up to the point that he no longer wanted to be one.”

He further said that a mere change of heart should not be considered as psychological incapacity that is sufficient to dissolve the marital bond.

Kho had the same opinion.