By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
I know of several Filipinas who found happiness in their marriages with foreigners, despite the huge differences in an alien culture. But some experienced hell in these sought-after affairs. One such story, my dear Reader, even reached the Supreme Court.
In May 2005, Abigael met Marco in an internet chatroom. They became chatmates and were soon exchanging letters. Abigael stated that “(i)n their exchanges of chat messages and letters, she found (Marco) to be sweet, kind and jolly, He made her feel that he really cared for her. He was romantic, x x x [A]lthough at times, (he) was impatient and easily got irritated, x x x.”
In Nov. 2005, or around 7 months after, Marco proposed marriage to Abigael. On Jan. 23, 2006, they were married. “During their honeymoon,” Abigael said that she, “noticed that the respondent was not circumcised, x x x (he) asked her where to find marijuana since he had to sniff some. This made the petitioner angry and she quarreled with him. (He) apologized later.”
Thereafter, Marco returned to Italy. A month later, Abigael followed. On April 18, 2007, or around 15 months after their wedding, Abigael abruptly returned to the Philippines.
What happened in Italy can be gleaned from Abigael’s testimony in the trial court:
“After a few days, respondent started displaying traits, character and attitude different from that of the Marco whom she had known thru the internet. He was immature, childish, irresponsible and dependent. He depended on his mother to do or to decide things for him. It was even his mother who decided where they lived and how the house should be arranged. When they transferred to a separate house, it was the respondent’s mother who managed the household. The respondent was also addicted to video games. During workdays, playing video games was always the first thing he does when he wakes up and the last thing he does before retiring. During rest days, he would play video games the whole day. There was never a quality time he spent with her, the kind of time that a responsible husband would spend with his wife. Respondent was extremely lazy that he never helped her in doing all the household chores. He also has extremely poor hygiene. He seldom takes a bath and brushes his teeth. For him to be able to take a bath, the petitioner would literally push him to the bathroom or hand him his toothbrush with toothpaste to brush his teeth. She had to put deodorant on his underarms for he would not do it himself. He refused circumcision. Sometime in May 2006, she caught him in their house while using marijuana. When confronted, he got mad and pushed her [hard] and hit her in the arm, [and told] her to go back to the Philippines. x x x. In October 2006, x x x they transferred to another house. Living in a separate house from his mother did not improve their marital relationship. His addiction to video games worsened. They seldom talk to each other as he did not want to be disturbed while playing games. His addiction to drugs likewise worsened. He would often invite his friends to their house for pot sessions, x x x to her extreme fright and discomfort. x x x. She further stated that respondent x x x only gave her money for food. He spent most of his income on video games. If they ran out of food, it was her mother-in-law who supported them.”
Abegail stated that “(s)ince then, there was no communication between them. x x x Petitioner took this as lack of interest on his part to save their marriage, (the) reason why she decided to file this petition.”
On September 14, 2007, Abigael filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage, with the RTC of Las Piñas City. However, RTC denied the petition. Aggrieved, she appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC’s decision. She then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
On April 16, 2018, the First Division of the Court rendered its decision in G.R. No. 209031, in the case of ABIGAEL AN ESPINA-DAN, Petitioner, v. MARCO DAN, Respondent. Justice Mariano Del Castillo wrote the decision.
Petitioner Abigael summed up her case as follows: “THE TOTALITY OF PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF RESPONDENT AND SATISFIED THE STANDARDS OF REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND MOLINA AND OTHER PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE IN POINT.”
The Court examined Abigael’s evidence. It held that her evidence failed to sufficiently prove that Marco was psychologically incapacitated to enter marriage at the time. This is so because her “evidence consists mainly of her judicial affidavit and testimony; the judicial affidavits and testimonies of her mother and Dr. Tayag; and Dr. Tayag’s psychological, evaluation report on the psychological condition of both petitioner and respondent. The determination of respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity was based solely on petitioner’s account and that of her mother, since respondent was presumably in Italy and did not participate in the proceedings.”
The Court noted that Abigael “admitted that before and during their marriage, respondent was working and giving money to her; that respondent was romantic, sweet, thoughtful, responsible, and caring; and that she and respondent enjoyed a harmonious relationship. This belies her claim that petitioner was psychologically unfit for marriage. As correctly observed by the trial and appellate courts, the couple simply drifted apart as a result of irreconcilable differences and basic incompatibility owing to differences in culture and upbringing, and the very short period that they spent together prior to their tying the knot. As for respondent’s claimed addiction to video games and cannabis, the trial and appellate courts are correct in their ruling that these are not an incurable condition, and petitioner has not shown that she helped her husband overcome them – as part of her marital obligation to render support and aid to respondent.”
The Court stated that “psychological incapacity,” as a “ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental – not merely physical – incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of ‘psychological incapacity’ to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.”
The Court then took up the testimony of the clinical psychologist, Dr. Nedy Tayag. It said that “(w)ith the declared insufficiency of the testimonies of petitioner and her witness, the weight of proving psychological incapacity shifts to Dr. Tayag’s expert findings. However, her determinations were not based on actual tests or interviews conducted on the respondent himself – but on personal accounts of petitioner alone. This will not do as well.” It observed that “(w)e cannot help but note that Dr. Tayag’s conclusions about the respondent’s psychological incapacity were based on the information fed to her by only one side — the petitioner — whose bias in favor of her cause cannot be doubted.”
To all and sundry, my dear Reader, the Court reiterated that,
“(P)sychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. Finally, the burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the petitioner.”
The Supreme Court’s First Division denied Abigael’s petition for her “failure to prove her case, her petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage was correctly dismissed by the courts below.” It affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which affirmed, in turn, the decision of the RTC-Las Pinas.
