A man who claimed psychological incapacity in view of a "domineering" wife who wanted sex "fast" and seemingly "without feelings" cannot ask the courts to nullify their marriage

In a decision released on Wednesday, 21 December 2022, the Supreme Court stressed that marriage in the Philippines is protected by the state and cannot be whimsically dissolved.

An unsatisfactory union, the SC said in a ponencia by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, is not a null-and-void union.

"As marriage is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution. It is protected by the State and cannot be easily dissolved at the whim of the parties," the SC said.

"Those who come to court in an attempt to sever the marital vinculum bears the heavy burden of showing that there is a serious ground to nullify the same," it added.

CA overturned

In the decision, the SC reversed a 2014 Court of Appeals ruling that upheld a lower court's 2011 order nullifying the marriage of college sweethearts Henry and Geng, not the parties' real names to protect their privacy.

No less than the Office of Solicitor General questioned before the SC the grant by the lower court and CA of the annulment anchored on the alleged psychological incapacity claimed by Henry to contract marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The marriage, which was blissful at first but soured later according to court records, resulted in the couple having three children.

Henry complained that Geng was "too direct, outspoken and domineering." He alleged that sex with Geng "was no longer satisfying because she always wanted it quick and as if devoid of feelings."

In 2003, Henry met a woman during a workshop in the Visayas and Geng suspected the two to have developed a relationship.

The husband eventually left the marital home purportedly to spare the children from witnessing his fights with Geng. The wife suspected it was so he can cohabit with his "mistress."

In 2008, Henry filed a petition to annul his marriage with Geng due to his claimed psychological incapacity backed by a psychological assessment that he was "suffering from passive-aggressive personality disorder."

Incomplete facts

Geng opposed the annulment petition. She said Henry "failed to specifically allege complete facts exhibiting the incapacity of either or both parties from complying with the essential obligations of marriage."

She pointed out she was open to reconciliation because she still loved her husband and remained committed to their marriage.

The trial court ruled in favor of Henry prompting Geng to run to the CA, this time with the OSG taking on the case for the state. The CA backed the lower court's decision.

Bringing the case before the SC, the OSG said the pieces of evidence adduced by Henry were insufficient to prove that he is psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations that warrant a declaration of his marriage void ab initio (from the start).