Please take note that sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation; not for a declaration of nullity of marriage. Legal separation and nullity are worlds apart, having their own respective grounds and effects on the marriage. Therefore, when filing for nullity, allege only grounds for such. Otherwise, the trial court understandably will dismiss your petition. What would the exclusivity of grounds be for, when they can be used for the other action as well?
In many petitions for declaration of nullity, however, we commonly see sexual infidelity alleged. Countless times, petitions state that the husbands maintain one, two or even three overlapping relationships while still married to their wives. Some respondents would even already have children with their illegitimate partners, clearly highlighting the brazen sexual infidelity.
In this particular case I wish to discuss today, the petitioner found out that while married to the respondent, her husband sired a child with another woman. That pretty much accounted for his apathy towards her and their child having already chosen the other party.
After the petitioner gave birth, she moved in with her parents to help her recover from her cesarean delivery. While there, the respondent hardly visited her. In the few times he did, he acted merely as a visitor, so detached from the petitioner. When the petitioner went back to their family home, the respondent was always out and returned only late in the evening. The respondent was so distant to the petitioner that they did not even have intimacy anymore. This prompted the petitioner to file for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to the respondent.
She presented the psychologist who testified that the respondent was indeed psychologically incapacitated. Despite evidence presented, however, the trial court denied the petition. It said that she simply was not able to adduce enough evidence to prove her case. To her dismay, she appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, did not give her the victory she yearned for. Rather it affirmed the finding of the lower court. Determined to win, the petitioner begged the Highest Tribunal to listen to her plea. After the parties’ submissions to the court, the Supreme Court found for petitioner.
“By the foregoing standards, Dr. Tayag’s findings sufficiently support a finding of psychological incapacity on the part of the respondent. The most blatant of his behaviors being maintaining a life with his paramour and their extramarital child in complete disregard of his own spouse, their child, and his marital obligations.
While sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code, the Court has ruled that the existence of grounds for legal separation does not foreclose the possibility of psychological incapacity. In Tan-Andal, the Court ruled that a marriage severed by legal separation may be attended by psychological incapacity:
The petitioner found out that while married to the respondent, her husband sired a child with another woman.
That drug addiction is a ground for legal separation will not prevent this Court from voiding the marriage in this case. A decree of legal separation entitles spouses to live separately from each other without severing their marriage bond, but no legal conclusion is made as to whether the marriage is valid. Therefore, it is possible that the marriage is attended by psychological incapacity of one or both spouses, with the incapacity manifested in ways that can be considered as grounds for legal separation. At any rate, so long as a party can demonstrate that the drug abuse is a manifestation of psychological incapacity existing at the time of the marriage, this should be enough to render the marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
In Clavecilla v. Clavecilla, the Court said that although sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation, it may also be a manifestation of psychological incapacity.
The Court would like to clarify that although sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation under Art. 55 of the Family Code, it may be deemed as a manifestation of psychological incapacity. Castillo v. Republic elucidated that there must be evidence linking the unfaithfulness with the inability to perform essential spousal obligations.
