SC: Personality disorder that hinders affection a ground to nullify marriage

MANILA - The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or show affection to their partner—if rooted in a personality disorder—may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and grounds to declare a marriage void.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated the earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), declaring a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The case stemmed from a relationship of a couple that met in 1999 and married secretly in 2002. 

DOJ to reach out to Supreme Court on missing sabungeros case

 The two did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They eventually had a Church wedding in 2004 during his visit to the Philippines, after which he returned abroad. The husband returned home a year later.

They lived together occasionally and had two children—a son in 2007 and a daughter in 2012. 

But the two were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships.

The RTC initially granted the petition but reversed its decision after the Office of the Solicitor General raised concerns about due process. The Court of Appeals later denied the husband’s appeal.

But the High Court ruled in his favor, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Comelec to seek Supreme Court 'reconsideration' on ruling to scrap ‘second placer’ rule 

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding.

"The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage," the court said.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity could manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. 

"If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void," the court said.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

“Loving one’s spouse is an important, if not the most important, essential marital obligation. It found that the husband no longer loved his wife, and that this inability to love her is rooted in his personality, caused by an emotionally immature parent. For these reasons, the husband 'must not be forced to stay in a loveless marriage, and his marriage to [his wife] must be voided,'" the court explained.

In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez argued that the husband failed to show that his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder existed before their marriage. 

Justice Lopez also stated that by the husband’s own account, he was a “loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse…up to the point that he no longer wanted to be one.” A mere change of heart should not be considered as psychological incapacity that is sufficient to dissolve the marital bond.

Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. joined Justice Lopez’s dissent.