MMA Law Office

| The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed the Court of Appeals dismissal of a husband's petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and held that the wife's lack of concern for her responsibilities constitutes psychological incapacity.

In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC Third Division has nullified the marriage between Ericson and Romelia Cabutaje on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity.

Ericson and Romelia were married in January 2003, and they had a daughter named Keirah Angela. While living with Ericson's parents, Romelia was urged by his mother to apply for work abroad. Thenceforth, Romelia went to Taiwan, leaving Ericson to take care of Keirah. Although Romelia was able to send money to them during the first few months, the money remittances eventually became scarce, prompting Ericson to similarly apply for work in Taiwan.

In Taiwan, the spouses rarely met as their workplaces were far apart. Over time, the marriage turned sour, and Romelia became inconsistent in providing financial support to their child. After several months of marital strife and upon the end of her contract in Taiwan, Romelia left for the Philippines and stayed with her parents.

She went to her in-laws' house to fetch Keirah. Romelia left Keirah in the custody of her sister when she went to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper. Since then, Romelia no longer provided financial support for Keirah. Egregiously, she had another romantic relationship with a different man.

This prompted Ericson to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Romelia. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and declared their marriage void ab initio. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), brought up the case before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA reversed the disposition of the RTC, citing purported insufficiency of evidence to support Ericson's petition. This paves the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reversing the appellate court's ruling, the high court gave great weight to the findings of clinical psychologist Dr. Nedy Tayag, who said Romelia is psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations. Although Dr. Tayag's findings were only anchored based on her interviews with Ericson and his witnesses. The lack of personal examination and interview of Romelia does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the expert.

“Indeed, the fact that the information comes from one side alone should not dilute the veracity of the evidence that Ericson presented during the trial, for to do so would punish every innocent spouse suffering in a marriage with a psychologically incapacitated spouse who comes to the court for succor. Ultimately, courts should judiciously assess the merits of each Article 36 petition on a case-to-case basis, including the psychological report, if any, regardless of the fact that only one of the spouses was interviewed by the psychologist,” the SC said.

“Due to Romelia's evident disregard and lack of concern for her responsibilities as a wife and mother, Ericson and their child were deprived of moral and emotional support, respect, love, care, and trust... Accordingly, the totality of evidence establishes, at most, her psychological incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligations,” SC added.

SC: Surviving Spouse Entitled to SSS Pension Even if Marriage Was Contracted After Spouse’s Disability |

The Supreme Court has voided the provision in the Social Security Act that disqualifies as primary beneficiaries those who become the legitimate spouse of the pensioner only after the latter suffered permanent total disability.

The Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, declared void the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8282, or the Social Security Act of 1997 (Social Security Law), for being contrary to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, as it granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by Belinda D.R. Dolera (Belinda). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Order of the Social Security Commission (SSC) denying Belinda’s application for survivorship pension following the death of her husband, Leonardo L. Dolera (Leonardo).

Ordering the SSS to process Belinda’s claim for survivorship pension, the Court stressed that the Social Security Law was enacted pursuant to the policy of the State to promote social justice and provide protection to the workers and their beneficiaries against the hazards of contingencies, such as disability and death, resulting in loss of income or financial burden.

As a social welfare legislation, the Social Security Law should be liberally construed in favor of the intended beneficiary, for it is only by giving the law a liberal construction that the constitutional policy concerning promotion of social justice is realized, held the Court.

The assailed provision of Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law provides that to be considered a primary beneficiary entitled to receive survivorship pension, the applicant must be the legitimate spouse of the pensioner as of the date of the latter’s disability.

The Court ruled, however, that the said provision is void for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it discriminates against dependent spouses who married the pensioners after the latter qualified for their pension.

The Court further ruled that Section 13-A(c) of the law violates the Constitution’s due process clause. Reiterating its 2004 ruling in GSIS, Cebu City Branch v. Montesclaros, the Court held that retirement benefits, including SSS pension, are protected property interest given that these are compulsory contributions that formed part of one’s compensation, rather than a mere gratuity.

In the case of Belinda, the Court held that her right to receive the survivorship pension was already established because as the deceased pensioner’s surviving spouse, she is entitled to the pension. Thus, its “unceremonious denial is an outright confiscation of [Belinda’s] right in violation of the due process clause,” the Court concluded.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-surviving-spouse-entitled-to-sss-pension-even-if-marriage-was-contracted-after-spouses-disability/. Read G.R. No. 253940 (Dolera v. SSS) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253940-belinda-d-r-dolera-vs-social-security-system/.


©️Supreme Court PH