The marrying kind

published April 14, 2008

I'm helping a psychologist friend edit reports he submits to lawyers who in turn submit petitions to courts for declaration of nullity of marriages. I've been doing this since 2005, and I must have processed the stories of at least 80 couples who, for some reason or another, want the court to declare that it is as though they and their spouses have never been married in the first place.

Needless to say, business is good.

I remember, too, that a few months ago, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera expressed alarm that the number of nullity cases filed with her office had been increasing. Devanadera added that the principal ground invoked for the petitions was provided for by Article 36 of the Family Code. That article is more popularly known as “psychological incapacity.”

Ideally, this term is applied sparingly, i.e., in extreme cases only. Thus, mere quarrels, petty incompatibilities, infidelity and even isolated instances of violence are, in themselves, insufficient to have a marriage declared null and void.

Instead, a person's individual actions should form a behavioral pattern, observed during a prolonged time period. Conclusions are drawn from narrations of marital histories, interviews with witnesses and, most importantly, the results of a battery of (at least seven) psychological tests that both spouses must undergo.

These patterns define the pathological disorder (any or a combination of the numerous types, based on the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) that in turn makes somebody psychologically incapable of carrying out the obligations attendant to married life. And they are pretty basic -- to live together, to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and to render mutual help and support. The disorder must be proven severe and incurable.

Airtight conditions, you say? On the practical level, there are several things that don't quite fit.

First, there is an implied requirement that the disorder should be a dormant condition. The tendencies must already be present prior to the marriage, but must be made manifest thereafter. So how can you tell if the man you are marrying is a narcissistic, histrionic,antisocial or dependent type if the two of you are just so enamored with each other? You can only point to the tendencies in hindsight, when, after a few years, love (or anything close to it) has gone sour.

Second, a declaration of nullity means that it is as if one has never been married at all. But if one's disorder is supposed to be inherent, and independent of whoever the mate is, why are both spouses, even the one declared incapacitated, permitted to get married anew? Won't this screw up his or her chances of having a successful relationship with the next one? Devanadera talks about marital recidivists – what do you do with people who think the perfect marriage is arrived at by trial and error?

Third, the law agrees to be, for once, illogical in the interest of compassion. Recognizing the stigma as well as the legal disadvantages of children out of illegitimate unions (I cringe to say illegitimate children, it just does not sound right) the law says children born out of marriages subsequently declared null shall remain legitimate. It simply does not follow. How can children out of a union which had been void from the beginning be legitimate?

Don't get me wrong, though. I think the compassion is laudable.

Suffice it to say that preparedness of both parties is the best possible guarantee that a union would work. And being prepared does not have anything to do with preparing to deliver babies. Indeed, in many of the cases i have seen, the parties rushed into marriage because of an unplanned pregnancy. I hope that parents are now more flexible and should know better than insisting on marriage as a way of legitimizing any premature acts on the part of their children. Because what happens once teenagers get past the “the-hell-with-everything-i-love-him/her” stage? As in that old movie, Reality Bites. And bites hard.

It's disturbing, too, that just because the Philippines takes pride in being a predominantly Catholic nation (oh, how many times has this phrase been abused!), we can't even seriously consider divorce as a plausible option for couples whose marriages – after reasonable effort at saving them is exhausted, of course – just won't work anymore? In the meantime, troubled couples resort to nullity petitions that deny something that was once good ever existed. But who wants to be in denial? Who will want to be declared incapacitated or apply that to somebody one used to love?

You'll be surprised how badly some people want their freedom. They will do anything -- even participate in a sham.

In this sense, a legal separation sounds more pragmatic, because at least it recognizes the existence of the union and legitimizes the parting of ways. The only reason why this is not popular is because it doesn't enable the parties to remarry. Everybody wants a second chance. Everybody wants to do better after one has failed. Right?

And it's not as if the system is perfect. Only those with the money and the patience can avail themselves of this legal recourse. We know too well that some lawyers are more comfortable in particular cities or municipalities because they know the family court judges in the area. In such a scenario, literally, lives and futures are determined by associations. Isn't that another heartbreaking matter as well?

Relationships fail. Nobody likes it that way. But it doesn't help, too, that a failed union, in an attempt to go around existing laws, should be reduced to nil. It is not nil. At best, it is a life-defining experience which has taught one precious lessons.

The worst would be to pretend none of it ever happened. Mistakes and failures should be acknowledged. Only then can people move on. To being better parents, better persons.