Prolonged and Unjustified Absence from Marital Home Considered as Evidence of Psychological Incapacity

In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has established that a decade-long, unjustified absence from the marital home can serve as compelling evidence of psychological incapacity—an important ground for the annulment of marriage. This significant ruling came from the Second Division of the Supreme Court, led by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, which ultimately nullified the marriage between Leonora De La Cruz and Alfredo Lanuza based on this condition.

Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines defines psychological incapacity as a condition that renders a spouse unable to perform the essential obligations of marriage, which encompasses fidelity, financial support, and cohabitation. For psychological incapacity to be recognized legally, it must be shown to exist at the time of marriage and must be classified as permanent or incurable. The interpretation of psychological incapacity has shifted notably over the years. Historically, courts relied heavily on expert testimony from mental health professionals, such as psychiatrists or psychologists, to assess whether a spouse was suffering from a recognized mental disorder that impeded their ability to fulfill marital obligations. However, with the recent De La Cruz case, there has been a marked shift towards considering chronic patterns of behavior—especially abandonment—as critical indicators of psychological incapacity. This evolution is particularly crucial as it reduces the burden of proof for individuals seeking annulments, making the legal process more accessible. Previous requirements for extensive psychiatric evaluations can be cumbersome and costly, and in many instances, such evaluations may not yield clear results for presenting in court. Conversely, tangible evidence of prolonged abandonment, accompanied by emotional neglect or failure to provide financial support, is generally more straightforward to compile and present to the judiciary.

In the landmark case of De La Cruz vs. Lanuza, the Supreme Court’s examination of Alfredo Lanuza’s extended, unjustified absence from the family home introduced a noteworthy legal precedent. The Court determined that Lanuza’s abandonment indicated a deliberate failure to assume his responsibilities as both a husband and father. This absence was not merely a physical departure; it was also characterized by emotional disengagement and a lack of financial contribution, which left De La Cruz to shoulder the immense burden of raising their children independently. Prior to this ruling, mere physical absence had often been deemed insufficient to ascertain psychological incapacity. Courts typically sought evidence of profound psychological disorders or mental health issues. However, the De La Cruz ruling establishes that a prolonged absence, especially when it correlates with other forms of neglect—such as the absence of financial support and disengagement from family life—can indeed substantiate claims of psychological incapacity, thereby paving the way for annulment proceedings.