THE Court of Appeals (CA) has thrown out a petition filed by a woman seeking to render null and void her marriage with a seaman for her failure to prove her husband’s allegedly psychological incapacity.
In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel Tijam and Agnes Reyes Carpio, the CA’s Sixth Division dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Rowena Sabino-Fajardo and Joery T. Fajardo.
The ruling reversed that made by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City (Metro Manila) declaring the Fajardo marriage void.
Records of the case showed that Rowena met Joery through a security guard of the office where the seaman was working. Joery courted Rowena and won her heart.
During their relationship, they would only have dates occasionally since Joery was most of the time away from home.
Soon thereafter, they contracted marriage on October 14, 1996 in civil rites solemnized by Judge Milagros F. Garcia-Beza at the Hall of Justice of Pasay City.
After their honeymoon, their relationship had been marred with Joery’s alleged refusal to have sex with Rowena. His unusual behavior immensely affected their union and they eventually parted ways. They were not blessed with a child.
Rowena later asked the RTC to declare their marriage void. The court sided with her, prompting Joery to seek redress with the appellate court.
In its January 5, 2015 decision, the CA found that “there is no evidence of respondent’s psychological incapacity as the notion is understood in the law and jurisprudence.”
“Petitioner’s testimony failed to show that respondent’s condition is a manifestation of a disordered personality rooted in some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition that rendered him unable to discharge his essential marital obligations,” it said.
The appellate court added that “respondent’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with petitioner does not constitute a ground to declare him psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code.”