Love gone sour

published 2 Feb 2007, MST

It’s the merry month of February and I thought I could use the looming holiday of sorts to launch into a commentary on something as taxing as falling in love.

It wasn’t too long ago when I learned that “annulment” was an entirely different thing from “declaration of nullity,” even when people use the former in ordinary conversation, referring to a couple’s going to court to sever their bond and obtain the freedom to marry other partners.

Full-blooded lawyers would be able to explain this better. But during my brief foray into the study of the law, I learned that an annulled marriage is considered valid up to the time the court decision is handed down. In contrast, in a declaration of nullity, it is as if there were no marriage at all; it was void from the beginning.

The Family Code says that grounds for annulment usually have to do with fraud or defect in the consent given by either party. Similarly, it identifies the instances when a marriage may be declared as invalid from the very beginning.

No ground for nullity, however, could be quite as popular as the one identified in Article 36—psychological incapacity.

Article 36 is a compromise of sorts given that divorce still cannot gain legitimacy in the Philippines. In this day and age, something so absolute and yet so easy to obtain is still frowned upon in our predominantly Catholic nation. It doesn’t help that the religion and politics are perplexingly intertwined here. Politicians —legislators, specifically—are careful not to offend the Church too much. After all, the Church plays a big role in helping its flock “discern” who to vote (and not to vote) for during elections.

But anyway. Article 36 comes as a relief to individuals trapped in unhappy marriages just as long as they can establish —beyond reasonable doubt—the existence of their partner’s (or in some instances, their own) psychological incapacity.

Theoretically, incapacity is tough to prove in court. The Supreme Court laid down the doctrine in the 1997 case of Republic vs the Court of Appeals and Molina (G.R. 108763, 13 February 1997), which enumerated at least eight conditions for establishing that a declaration of nullity is sought not because of simple incompatibility or even “falling out of love” but because of a debilitating condition that would do more harm than good to the institution of the family.

The guidelines say that (1) the burden of proof to show the basis for nullity belongs to the plaintiff; (2) The root cause of the incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision; (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing “at the time of the celebration” of the marriage; (4) Such incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable; (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage (mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes); (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code; (7) Interpretations given by the matrimonial tribunal of the Catholic Church must be given great respect; and (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting lawyer or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

The standards are equally strict from a clinical point of view.

I have a friend who has been acting as an expert in court cases for declaration of nullity for many years now. Arnulfo Lopez, who has a doctorate in clinical psychology, says there are 10 types of personality disorders—paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, anti-social, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive— the presence of which may render a person psychologically incapable to perform the essential marital obligations. The operative word is “may.”

In the books, each disorder has a distinct set of features. A person has to exhibit several of these features—not just one or two—in a pervasive and consistent way. A pattern of recurring behavior, observed over time, must be established and be traced back to a root cause that had been existing before the date of the marriage.

To illustrate the strictness of these guidelines, spousal abuse does not translate automatically to psychological incapacity. The abusive behavior must be evaluated in relation to the other manifestations of a particular type of disorder.

Findings are obtained through a battery of psychological tests, a written narration of the couple’s marital history, interviews of friends, relatives or co-workers and an evaluation of the family background of both the petitioner and the respondent.

But what is the missing link? Assuming that someone is confirmed to have a personality disorder, how do we make the jump from recognizing that disorder to concluding that the disorder makes the person psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of marriage?

Dr. Lopez says it’s simple. It’s a matter of severity, or gravity. A condition is severe when it affects all three areas of occupation: social (dealing with other people, spouse included), functional (work or profession) and psychological (the manner in which the person sees himself or herself).

Formidable guidelines, aren’t they? Invoking Article 36, then, must not be too easy after all.

Apparently, some of the cases he’s handled are stronger or more convincing than others. Some behavioral patterns are more flagrant. Some disorders are more pronounced. Hence, some are clearly more incapacitated than others. Does it follow that the weaker cases don’t get the declaration?

I guess desperation gets the better of people when they exaggerate their marital histories to meet the “severe” criteria, even when the matter is only a case of gross incompatibility between two perfectly healthy, psychologically balanced people. This is the evil that mocks the protection offered to the sanctity of marriage.

I also cannot understand why after a declaration of nullity, after it has been established that a person is psychologically incapacitated (permanently and incurably) to perform essential marital obligations, he or she can be free to enter into another marriage.

In this case, it’s easy to say there may as well be an honest-to-goodness divorce law here. People make bad choices. In extreme cases, it is also immoral to stand by these wrong choices just to keep up appearances, when the home environment has become toxic and has started to eat at the well-being of unhappy spouses. So let’s call a spade a spade and quit hiding behind the cloak of psychological incapacity when it’s clear as day we just want out.

Maybe then, liberation won’t come at such a great price.