Baccay v. Baccay (G.R. No. 173138; December 1, 2010)


FACTS: Maria and Jose are married. The man contended that the wife refused to consummate their marriage by refusing to have sexual intercourse with him during the marriage. He alleged that their last intercourse was prior to their marriage. He contended that the wife was suffering from psychological incapacity.
ISSUE: Is the argument meritorious?
HELD: No, the argument is unmeritorious. Refusal of the a wife to have sex with her husband is not a sign of psychological incapacity.

The husband’s evidence merely established that the wife refused to have sexual intercourse with him after their marriage, and that she left him after their quarrel when he confronted her about her alleged miscarriage. He failed to prove the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity and establish the requirements of gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. There must be proof that the psychological disorder renders her “truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.”

Psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” a “refusal,” or a “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage. In Marcos v. Marcos, it was ruled that Article 36 of the Family Code, we stress, is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. (G.R. No. 173138; December 1, 2010)

Project Jurisprudence is connected with the following:

Facebook page:
Twitter page:
YouTube channel:
Another YouTube channel: