Victory for women in toxic relations
“A prolonged and unjustified absence from the home makes it nearly impossible to fulfill these responsibilities.
Daily Tribune“A prolonged and unjustified absence from the home makes it nearly impossible to fulfill these responsibilities.
This week, the Supreme Court made an important ruling in the case of Leonora Dela Cruz-Lanuza v. Alfredo Lanuza Jr., G.R. 242362, dated 17 April 2024. The Court decided that a spouse’s unjustified absence from the marital home for decades can be seen as evidence of psychological incapacity to fulfil marital obligations.
Psychological incapacity is a common ground for seeking an annulment of marriage in the Philippines. An annulment declares a marriage null and void from the start due to fundamental flaws in the marital contract. However, pursuing an annulment is complex and challenging. It involves navigating legal technicalities, filing procedures, and, crucially, presenting sufficient proof and testimony to establish psychological incapacity.
In this recent case, the couple married in June 1984. Over time, the husband’s behavior changed drastically. He stopped providing financial support, treated his wife as merely a resident rather than a partner, and engaged in extramarital affairs. They had four children together. The couple separated in 1994, and the husband went on to marry several other women.
Leonora, the wife, sought to nullify their marriage. However, the Regional Trial Court found insufficient evidence of the husband’s subsequent marriages and ruled that infidelity alone did not prove psychological incapacity. This highlights the difficulty of proving psychological incapacity, as it requires more than just demonstrating infidelity.
Understanding this ruling requires knowing the Family Code of the Philippines, specifically Executive Order 209 of 1987, which covers marriage laws, spousal duties, and parental responsibilities.
Article 68 of the Family Code states that spouses must live together, show mutual love, respect, fidelity, and support each other. It’s hard to see how anyone can meet these obligations if they are unjustifiably absent from the home, no matter how advanced communication technology becomes.
The Supreme Court decision also referenced Article 220 of the Family Code, which outlines parental duties. Parents must keep their children in their company, support, educate, and guide them with love and understanding. A prolonged and unjustified absence from the home makes it nearly impossible to fulfill these responsibilities.
This ruling marks an important milestone in recognizing and addressing the plight of individuals suffering from prolonged abandonment. It offers hope for those in abusive situations, reaffirming the legal system’s role in protecting the rights of spouses and children. Let’s celebrate this development as a significant step towards justice and support for those enduring long-term, unjustified absences.