By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado

“DYTIANQUIN VS. DYTIANQUIN, G.R. NO. 234462 (07 DECEMBER 2020): DIFFICULTY, REFUSAL OR NEGLECT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF MARITAL OBLIGATIONS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AS GROUND FOR DECLARING A MARRIAGE VOID

Article 36 of the Family Code is the most common provision invoked to have a marriage declared null and void. Because we are a predominantly Catholic country and our 1987 Philippine Constitution protects and strengthens the family as the most basic autonomous social institution, the grounds for annulment are limited. Hence, the resort to the default Article 36 of the Family Code. However, judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, which forms part of the law of the land, provides for stringent standard to declare marriage null and void based on psychological incapacity. It must be proven that the psychological disorder must be: 1) existing at the time of the marriage although it may only manifest after marriage; 2) must be grave; and 3) must be incurable, that parties are unable to perform essential marital obligations.

On 07 December 2020, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of “Maria Elena Bustamante Dytianquin vs. Eduardo Dytianquin”, G.R. No. 234462 (07 December 2020). In the said case, Spouses Eduardo and Elena Dytianquin met when they were about to finish high school sometime in 1969. Elena’s father opposed to their relationship. Hence, they eloped and eventually got married on 18 October 1970 in Makati City. For the first few months of marriage, they lived a harmonious life until after a year, they started to have frequent and violent fights because Eduardo would always go out with friends and stay with his grandmother instead of going home to his wife. Elena would confront Eduardo and shout invectives at him, insulting him and his family. This would prompt Eduardo to leave the house and stay with his own family. Every time Eduardo leaves the house, Elena would fetch him. When it became a cycle, they went on their separate ways and in 1976, without any hope of reconciliation, the couple finally decided to call it quits. 

It was only on 25 February 2013 that Eduardo filed a declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Presenting the findings and testimony of a clinical psychologist, Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, Eduardo alleged that he was diagnosed with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder and Elena was diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Arguing that because of their psychological disorders, they are unable to perform essential marital obligations, hence, their marriage should be declared null and void. The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136, dismissed the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the ruling of the lower court and declared the marriage void. Elena then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court’s First Division granted the Elena’s Petition and reversed and set aside the Decision of the appellate court. The Court, under the ponencia of Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta held that the totality of evidence presented failed to prove sufficient and factual basis to rule that the parties’ personality disorders amounted to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Notably, on the findings and diagnosis of Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder on Eduardo described as “obstructive and intolerant of others, expressing negative or incompatible attitudes”, the Court held that the said is premised not on some debilitating psychological condition, “but rather on his outright refusal or unwillingness to perform his marital obligations.” On the findings and diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder on Elena characterized by “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and lack of empathy along with manic-depressive features”, the Court held that this was not sufficiently proven during trial. The Court also noted that even Eduardo admitted that whenever they would fight and he would leave their house, Elena would fetch him and settle their issues. 

In ruling that while psychological disorders may make it difficult to comply marital duties, these do not automatically equate to psychologically incapacity to fulfill essential marital obligations, the Court held:

“Psychological incapacity must be more than just a ‘difficulty,’ ‘refusal’ or ‘neglect’ in the performance of the marital obligations; it is not enough that a party prove that the other failed to meet the responsibility and duty of a married person. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in now wise constitutes psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and are not manifestations thereof which may be a ground for declaring their marriage void.”

My comment on this ruling of the Supreme Court is that it further made difficult and stringent to obtain a nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. It is not enough that you present an expert witness, a Clinical Psychologist, but his or her findings of personality disorders in either or both of the parties must meet the gravity and incurability required as established by jurisprudence. On the one hand, in the case of Eduardo, his condition was found by the Court not to be grave as it was merely avoidance or refusal to perform marital obligations, including and especially during times that they had disagreements and quarrels. Eduardo chose to walk away instead of confronting and resolving their marital issues. The Court found the same as not rooted on debilitating psychological condition. On the other hand, on the condition of Elena as alleged by Eduardo, it was negated by his very own testimony or admission that his wife fetched him every time he goes home to his family after a quarrel. This admission sealed the fate of their marital union as valid and subsisting.