Go (coco)nuts! Share this story with your friends.
So, what kind of problem does your marriage need to have before the Court of Appeals thinks it has to be nullified?
“In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla, the CA Sixth Division dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of ‘Ira’ and ‘Larry’ (real names withheld due to the sensitivity of the case) — pointing out that ‘a spouse’s refusal to have sex is not a proof of psychological incapacity,'” reports Leonard D. Postrado in Tempo.
The CA reversed the ruling of the Pasay City Regional Trial Court declaring their marriage void.
“Ira” had filed the motion to nullify her marriage to “Larry” because he refused to have sex with her.
The CA pointed out that “the petitioner failed to show that respondent’s condition is a manifestation of a disordered personality rooted in some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition that rendered him unable to discharge his essential marital obligations.”
The CA also said that “there is no evidence of respondent’s psychological incapacity as the notion is understood in the law and jurisprudence.”
The report recalls the couple’s story: “Ira met Larry through the security guard of the office where he was working. He courted her and won her heart. During their relationship, they would only have dates occasionally since Larry was most of the time away from home. They were married in 1996 in civil rites solemnized by Judge Milagros F. Garcia-Beza at the Hall of Justice of Pasay City.
After their honeymoon, their relationship soured because of Larry’s alleged refusal to have sex with Ira. His unusual behavior had immensely affected their union and they eventually parted ways. They did not have children.”
The crazy thing is, Larry contested the Pasay court’s decision and brought the case to the CA.
The CA, as the report indicated, in reversing the order of the Pasay RTC, maintained that “(Larry’s) refusal to have sexual intercourse with petitioner does not constitute a ground to declare him psychological incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code.”
Photo: MorgueFile
