The Supreme Court said that a person’s “decades-long” absence from the marriage home could be used as proof that they are psychologically incapable of complying with marital obligations.
In an 18-page decision promulgated on August 17, the SC Second Division nullified the marriage of Leonora Dela Cruz-Lanuza and Alfredo Lanuza, Jr.’s on the grounds of psychological incapacity, setting aside the Court of Appeals’ (CA) decision.
“Respondent’s 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,” the Supreme Court said.
The couple married in 1984, but split up after ten years after Alfredo’s behavior changed and showed signs of psychological incapacity.
Besides that, Leonora said Alfredo wouldn’t financially support the first family, failed to provide food. She added that Alfredo engaged in sexual relations with several other women after they broke up and did not treat her like his wife.
These factors caused their separation in 1994. Alfredo then married several others after they broke up.
Leonora filed a petition to nullify their marriage, but both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals denied the decision.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, said that their marriage was void as Alfredo had been away from his home for a long time, which showed that he was mentally unfit to make his marriage responsibilities.
“Respondent’s 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 father,” the court said in the decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
“Based on the facts, the respondent left his family in 1994 and appears to have contracted marriage several times, with different women. He never gave financial support to his children and only visited them once, for less than an hour. These indicate that respondent did not understand his obligation as a husband and father,” Leonen added.
In its ruling, the court also said it was clear that Alfredo’s “personality disorder” started when he was a child and is linked to his inability to be a good husband and father.
The court also said that his disorder seems to have been caused by how his family raised him because he didn’t have enough parental control and his parents’ lack of strictness made him “extremely assertive.” (TCSP)
