- Joined
- May 26, 2022
- Posts
- 9,410
- Solutions
- 18
- Reaction
- 12,557
- Points
- 4,108
RANDOM THOUGHTS ON DIVORCE V. PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY:
Aside from the annulment proceedings, we also have the psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code to declare the marriage void ab initio.
The term 'Psychological Incapacity' under our laws does not mean insanity or in any clinical terms, but rather failure of the spouses to comply with essential marital obligations with the following standards: a) it must be grave and serious that the spouse cannot carry out the ordinary duties required in marriage life; b) it must be rooted in the past history although manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; c) and must be incurable (not again in clinical terms but must be construed that the cure is beyond the means of the party involved. In short, it must be chronic, constant, and perpetual.
And upon reflection, the proposed divorce bill includes infidelity, abandonment, et al. as legal grounds. Such grounds are also clear manifestations of either or both spouses failure to comply with essential marital obligations.
Yes, I understand that divorce must not be confused with psychological incapacity because the latter has already existed even before the celebration of marriage.
However, I still could not comprehend why there is a need to oppose divorce yet allow psychological incapacity to nullify the marriage in the first place. Since, if we think thoroughly, both are still rooted in violation of the three goods of marriage under our laws, which are children, fidelity, and permanence.
Aside from the annulment proceedings, we also have the psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code to declare the marriage void ab initio.
The term 'Psychological Incapacity' under our laws does not mean insanity or in any clinical terms, but rather failure of the spouses to comply with essential marital obligations with the following standards: a) it must be grave and serious that the spouse cannot carry out the ordinary duties required in marriage life; b) it must be rooted in the past history although manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; c) and must be incurable (not again in clinical terms but must be construed that the cure is beyond the means of the party involved. In short, it must be chronic, constant, and perpetual.
And upon reflection, the proposed divorce bill includes infidelity, abandonment, et al. as legal grounds. Such grounds are also clear manifestations of either or both spouses failure to comply with essential marital obligations.
Yes, I understand that divorce must not be confused with psychological incapacity because the latter has already existed even before the celebration of marriage.
However, I still could not comprehend why there is a need to oppose divorce yet allow psychological incapacity to nullify the marriage in the first place. Since, if we think thoroughly, both are still rooted in violation of the three goods of marriage under our laws, which are children, fidelity, and permanence.