FACTS: Veronica and
Rey got married. After their wedding, they lived in Rey’s house in Occidental
Mindoro. Then they returned to Manila, but Rey did not live with Veronica in
her home in Tondo. Rey then left for Riyahd where he was working. He never
contacted his wife since he left. About a year and a half, Veronica was
informed that her husband is coming home. But she was surprised that he did not
go directly to her in Tondo but to his house in Mindoro instead. Thus,
petitioner concluded that respondent was physically incapable of consummating
his marriage with her, providing sufficient cause for annulment of their
marriage pursuant to paragraph 5, Article 45 of the Family Code. Respondent has
been uncooperative to the investigation. Dr. Tayag testified that Rey was
suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, hence, it is a sufficient
ground for declaration of nullity of marriage. RTC denied. CA also denied.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE W/N the
respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marriage
obligations
HELD: SC denied. The action originally filed was
annulment of marriage based on Article 45, paragraph 5 of the Family Code.
Article 45(5) of the Family Code refers to lack of power to copulate.[16]
Incapacity to consummate denotes the permanent inability on the part of the
spouses to perform the complete act of sexual intercourse. No evidence was
presented in the case at bar to establish that respondent was in any way
physically incapable to consummate his marriage with petitioner. Petitioner even admitted during her
cross-examination that she and respondent had sexual intercourse after their
wedding and before respondent left for abroad. Petitioner was actually seeking
for declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent based on the latter’s
psychological incapacity to comply with his marital obligations of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code. he Court declared that “psychological
incapacity” under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to comprehend all
possible cases of psychoses. It should
refer, rather, to no less than a mental (not 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. Psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (
No comments:
Post a Comment