SC cites long absences from home to void union

INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

The Supreme Court has ruled that prolonged, unjustified absence from the marital home could be grounds for psychological incapacity to fulfill marital obligations.

In an 18-page decision promulgated on April 17 but made public only on Thursday, the high tribunal’s Second Division nullified the marriage between Leonora dela Cruz-Lanuza and Alfredo Lanuza Jr. due to psychological incapacity.

“Respondent’s infidelity, failure to give support to his wife and children, and unjustified absence from his family are all indicative that he is not cognizant of the duties and responsibilities of a husband and father,” it said in the decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. Leonora and Alfredo, who were wed in June 1984 and had four children, faced marital issues over time.

Alfredo refused to provide financial support and treated Leonora as merely an occupant rather than a spouse. His extramarital activities further strained the relationship.

READ: SC voids marriage due to husband’s unjustified absence from marital home

The couple separated in 1994, and Alfredo went on to marry other women.

Leonora then sought to nullify their marriage, but her petition was initially rejected by a lower court due to insufficient evidence about Alfredo’s subsequent marriages.

The Court of Appeals also dismissed her petition, prompting Leonora to appeal to the Supreme Court. The high tribunal ultimately declared their marriage void, ruling that Alfredo’s long absence from his marital home showed psychological incapacity, which made him unable to fulfill his marital duties.