Marital Obligations, A68-72 Family Code
1. Rights and Obligations
a. To live together
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together x x x
1) As expressed in Article 6845 of the Family Code, the marital covenants include the mutual obligations of husband and wife to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and to help and support each other. (Espiritu v. Boac-Espiritu, G.R. No. 247583, 06 October 2021, Per Lazaro-Javier, J.)
2) While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art.ℒαwρhi৷ 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually the “spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order” (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say “I could not have cared less.” This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations. (Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, G.R. No. 119190, 16 January 1997, Per Torres, Jr., J.)
Santos-Gantan v. Gantan, G.R. No. 225193, 14 October 2020, Per Lazaro-Javier, J.:
• Psychological incapacity refers to a mental incapacity that causes a party to be non-cognitive of the basic marital covenants which must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. As expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, these marital covenants include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect, and fidelity and to help and support each other. The law has intended to confine “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders that clearly demonstrate an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.31 It is the inability to understand the obligations of marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them.
• Dr. Dela Cruz’s clinical documentation indubitably showed that respondent exhibited the following behaviors as observed by petitioner and the other resource persons: anger, baiting and picking fights, belittling, condescending and patronizing speech, blaming, bullying, chaos manufacture, cheating, chronic broken promises, emotional abuse, impulsiveness and impulsivity, lack of boundaries, lack of conscience, manipulation, “not my fault” syndrome, objectification, pathological lying, physical abuse, raging, violence and impulsive aggression, testing, threats, and verbal abuse.
• After keen assessment and evaluation of petitioner and information gathered from the latter herself and other informants, Dr. Dela Cruz diagnosed respondent to be suffering from “Axis II Anti-Social Personality Disorder” characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others. She found that respondent was: (1) deceitful, as indicated by his repeated lying and conning method to achieve personal pleasure; (2) consistently irresponsible, as indicated by his repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; and (3) lacked remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing his having hurt or mistreated others.
• Indeed, the totality of evidence has sufficiently established here that respondent is psychologically incapacitated at the time he got married to petitioner and continue to be so thereafter. He is truly non-cognitive of the basic marital covenants such as the mutual obligation to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity, and render help and support to each other. Such psychological incapacity is enough to declare the nullity of his marriage with petitioner even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
1) Family Domicile
Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide.
The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (110a)
1) A major accomplishment of women in their quest for equality with men and the elimination of discriminatory provisions of law was the deletion in the Family Code of almost all of the unreasonable strictures on wives and the grant to them of personal rights equal to that of their husbands. Specifically, the husband and wife are now given the right jointly to fix the family domicile; concomitant to the spouses’ being jointly responsible for the support of the family is the right and duty of both spouses to manage the household; the administration and the enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly; the father and mother shall now jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of their unemancipated common child and several others. (Separate Opinion by Romero, J. in Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 119976, 18 September 1995)
2) [U]nder Article 69 of the Family Code, the fixing of the family domicile is no longer the sole prerogative of the husband, but is now a joint decision of the spouses, and in case of disagreement the court shall decide. The said article uses the term “family domicile,” and not family residence, as “the spouses may have multiple residences, and the wife may elect to remain in one of such residences, which may destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits” (ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, [1988], 102, cited in Dissenting Opinion by Davide, Jr., J., in Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, En Banc [1995]).
Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and the duty of both spouses. The expenses for such management shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 70. (115a)
b. To observe mutual love, love, respect, and fidelity
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to x x x observe mutual love, respect and fidelity x x x
Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, G.R. No. 119190, 16 January 1997, Per Torres, Jr., J.:
• It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private respondent. That is — a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each other’s feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.
Clavecilla v. Clavecilla, G.R. No. 228127, 06 March 2023, Per Gesmundo, C.J.:
• [P]etitioner described Marivic as carefree, a consistent nagger, and a very demanding wife, who preferred the company of friends. However, his claims not only remained to be unsubstantiated, but were also insufficient to establish psychological incapacity. His complaints against Marivic appear to be minor, and do not have any relevance to her inability to perform essential marital obligations.
• Petitioner laments that Marivic appears to have no interest in contributing to the family’s income despite his prodding. Still, this allegation is not enough to convince the Court of her psychological incapacity.
• The standards in determining whether Marivic is psychologically incapacitated are laid down in Arts. 68 to 71 of the Family Code. Said provisions refer to spousal obligations which range from living together, observing mutual love, respect and fidelity, rendering mutual help and support, fixing the family domicile, support, and management of the household. Despite this myriad of spousal obligations, it was only in one aspect where Marivic, in the eyes of petitioner, failed in her duties, effectively admitting that she had no difficulty in performing the remaining obligations.
• Regardless, Marivic was able to sufficiently refute petitioner’s allegations of her supposed inability and unwillingness to contribute to the family’s income. The documents she presented (i.e. the certification from the International Operations Group of the Pag-IBIG Fund, Contract of Services with the Philippine Overseas Labor Office in Milan, Italy, etc.) reasonably prove that she was able to find work during their marriage, thus, enabling her to also provide for the financial needs of the family.
c. To render mutual help and support
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to x x x render mutual help and support. (109a)
Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income or fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate properties. (111a)
Santos-Gantan v. Gantan, G.R. No. 225193, 14 October 2020, Per Lazaro-Javier, J.:
• The Court rules that the totality of evidence presented here has sufficiently established that respondent is afflicted with psychological incapacity which hindered him from performing his duties as husband to petitioner.
• Petitioner testified on how respondent fail to observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, let alone, render mutual help and support to her. She mainly averred that they were no longer living together as husband and wife. Respondent had abandoned her and is already living with his paramour and their daughter. He had been abusing her physically, mentally, and emotionally. He had been having illicit affairs with older and married women while ignoring and rejecting her need for love, affection and intimacy. He often mocked, insulted and called her names, such as “thin,” “ugly,” and “old hag.” He was short-tempered and violent. He frequently hurt or assaulted her physically, even causing her to get hospitalized and suffer a miscarriage. His lackadaisical and irresponsible attitude often caused his termination from employment and left him jobless and unable to support the family. All these reflect his lack of remorse, deception, impulsivity, irritability, aggressiveness, physical assault and intimidation, reckless disregard for the safety of others, unwillingness to meet normal standards for work, support and parenting, and failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.
• To aid in her assessment of the couple’s psychological condition, Dr. Dela Cruz gave questionnaires to the other informants consisting of the couple’s friends and relatives. Their answers to the questionnaires elicited the various behaviors which they reportedly observed from respondent. Dr. Dela Cruz then collated and reflected this information in her report.
• Dr. Dela Cruz’s clinical documentation indubitably showed that respondent exhibited the following behaviors as observed by petitioner and the other resource persons: anger, baiting and picking fights, belittling, condescending and patronizing speech, blaming, bullying, chaos manufacture, cheating, chronic broken promises, emotional abuse, impulsiveness and impulsivity, lack of boundaries, lack of conscience, manipulation, “not my fault” syndrome, objectification, pathological lying, physical abuse, raging, violence and impulsive aggression, testing, threats, and verbal abuse.
Maristela-Cuan v. Cuan, G.R. No. 248518, 07 December 2021, Per Lazaro-Javier, J.:
• Marcelino’s psychological incapacity is incurable in the legal sense. To recall, Marcelino brought up the idea of marriage to Janice, not for reasons such as mutual love or settling down and starting a family with Janice, but to remove his anxiety. He himself admitted to Janice that marriage was the only way for him not to feel anxious, jealous, and overprotective of Janice. As it was though, his overprotectiveness, extreme jealousy, and violent tendencies were the very same reasons why he never got to fulfill his spousal obligations toward Janice. Marcelino was so preoccupied with his own needs and insecurities which prevented him from performing his spousal functions. In the end, he got so consumed by them that he abandoned his wife and ended their union over the telephone.
• Based on the evidence on record, we thus find that Marcelino failed to give mutual love, respect, and support to Janice. His personality disorder barred him from performing even the most basic of marital obligations: to love, respect and live together with his wife. Verily, Janice should be free from the shackles of marriage that actually exists in paper only.
• As the Court decreed in Santos-Gantan v. Gantan in dissolving marital bonds on ground of psychological incapacity of either spouse, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families. By preventing a person who is afflicted with a psychological disorder and incapable of complying with the essential marital obligations from remaining in that sacred bond, the Court is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage. In the first place, there is no marriage to speak of since it is void from the very beginning.
