This article talks about the case of Lanuza vs. Lanuza where the Supreme Court stated that abandoning the family may be considered as evidence for psychological incapacity of a spouse as a ground for declaring a marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Since the Philippines has no divorce, the only ways to dissolve the marital bond is to either file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage or petition for annulment of marriage with the courts. The most practical ground often used is psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code which states:
“Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
In Datu vs. Datu [G.R. No. 209278, 15 September 2021], it was held that “Psychological incapacity, a ground to void marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, is a legal, not a medical concept. As such, it is enough that parties prove that an enduring part of their personality renders them incapable of performing their essential marital obligations. That the psychological incapacity be rooted in a particular psychological illness is no longer necessary.” Thus, pursuant to the doctrine enunciated in Tan-Andal vs. Andal, “there must be proof of the durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality called personality structure, which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse’s personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.”
On 17 April 2024, the Supreme Court promulgated its judgement in the case of Dela Cruz-Lanuza vs. Lanuza [G.R. No. 242362] (Lanuza Case) where it ruled that that abandoning the family may be considered as evidence for psychological incapacity of a spouse as a ground for declaring a marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
In the Lanuza Case, the wife averred that her husband, a policeman, who she has four children with, would oftentimes come home late after night outs with friends and neglected his duty to his children. In addition to treating her like a mere occupant of the house instead of a wife, the husband was involved in several illicit affairs. Finally, after almost ten years of marriage, the husband left his wife and children. He even contracted several marriages thereafter.
Aggrieved by this and in addition to the bigamy charges she filed against her husband, the wife filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed her petition, alleging that the acts of the husband were not sufficient to prove psychological incapacity.
However, the Supreme Court overturned the dismissal and held that his infidelity, failure to give support to his wife and children and unjustified absence from his family are all indicative that he is not cognizant of the duties and responsibilities of a husband and a father. It added that under Article 68 of the Family Code, the husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support. Moreover, Article 220 of the Family Code enumerates some of the obligations of the parents to their children. The husband in this case failed to perform such duties and obligations under the law.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
If you want to learn how to make a will or need help regarding estate planning, wills and succession, we can help you. Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at info@ndvlaw.com. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com .
