SC says unjustified absence from home may be considered ground to void marriage | ABS-CBN
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
SC says unjustified absence from home may be considered ground to void marriage
SC says unjustified absence from home may be considered ground to void marriage
MANILA – The Supreme Court has ruled that “decades-long” absence from the marital home by an individual could be deemed as evidence to prove psychological incapacity in marital obligations.
MANILA – The Supreme Court has ruled that “decades-long” absence from the marital home by an individual could be deemed as evidence to prove psychological incapacity in marital obligations.
In a decision promulgated on April 17, 2024, the high court granted the petition of Leonora Dela Cruz-Lanuza against her husband Alfredo Lanuza, Jr.
In a decision promulgated on April 17, 2024, the high court granted the petition of Leonora Dela Cruz-Lanuza against her husband Alfredo Lanuza, Jr.
The couple got married in 1984 and separated after ten years after Alfredo’s behavior changed.
The couple got married in 1984 and separated after ten years after Alfredo’s behavior changed.
He also refused to provide financial support to his family and married several women after the separation.
He also refused to provide financial support to his family and married several women after the separation.
Leonora filed a petition to nullify their marriage but was denied both at the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals levels.
Leonora filed a petition to nullify their marriage but was denied both at the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals levels.
The Supreme Court however ruled that their marriage was void because of Alfredo’s long absence from his marital home which showed psychological incapacity and made him unable to fulfill his marital duties.
The Supreme Court however ruled that their marriage was void because of Alfredo’s long absence from his marital home which showed psychological incapacity and made him unable to fulfill his marital duties.
The high court noted that under Article 68 of the Family Code, spouses are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support.
The high court noted that under Article 68 of the Family Code, spouses are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support.
“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.
“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.
The court also noted in the decision that it was clear that Alfredo’s “personality disorder” developed from his childhood and is correlated to his inability to fulfill his obligations as a husband and father.
The court also noted in the decision that it was clear that Alfredo’s “personality disorder” developed from his childhood and is correlated to his inability to fulfill his obligations as a husband and father.
The court further noted that his disorder appears to have been caused by how he was raised by his family as he was deprived of appropriate parental supervision and the leniency of his parents encouraged him to be “extremely assertive.”
The court further noted that his disorder appears to have been caused by how he was raised by his family as he was deprived of appropriate parental supervision and the leniency of his parents encouraged him to be “extremely assertive.”
“His psychological incapacity developed during his formative years and existed prior to his marriage to petitioner,” the court said.
“His psychological incapacity developed during his formative years and existed prior to his marriage to petitioner,” the court said.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
