In civil cases, defendants often invoke an affirmative defense — the clean hands or unclean hands doctrine. Also dubbed as the dirty hands doctrine, this legal principle states that he who comes into equity must come there with clean hands. In the same vein, when a person is deemed to have committed inequity concerning the controversy in the issue, courts must deny relief in favor of the said person.
The doctrine is anchored on maintaining the integrity of the legal system such that litigants will be precluded from using courts to gain an advantage over another party.
While proceedings for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity (Article 36 of the Family Code) is civil in character, the doctrine of unclean hands may not be invoked to oppose the petition. Even the psychologically-incapacitated spouse is, therefore, not precluded from filing a petition for a declaration of nullity of marriage.
In the recent case of Clavecilla v. Clavecilla (G.R. No. 228127, 6 March 2023), the respondent wife opposed her husband’s petition to declare their marriage null and void due to psychological incapacity. She raised that the petitioner husband merely sought the annulment of their marriage because of an extramarital affair and that her husband wanted to legitimize his relationship with his lover. The wife argued that the husband should not be allowed to benefit from his own misdeed. For that, the wife insisted that her husband should not be allowed to break free from the marriage bond.
The Supreme Court dismissed the suggestion that the doctrine of unclean hands applies in seeking the nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. There is no party at fault when the ground is psychological incapacity. If a person is incapacitated to fulfill his or her marital obligations, the Supreme Court opined that said incapacity is not deliberate or intentional on the spouse’s part to possess such a personality trait.
Without such deliberate intent or bad faith, it cannot be said that inequity exists in a marriage sought to be annulled due to psychological incapacity. Since the doctrine of unclean hands applies to cases of equity, it cannot be invoked in Article 36 cases.
The case of Clavecilla also highlighted that the filing of the petition is not limited to the person not suffering from psychological incapacity at the time of marriage. Effectively, either spouse may initiate the petition and invoke his or her own psychological incapacity or that of the other spouse or both. It is sufficient that the petition contains specific allegations of the incapacity of the spouse to comply with the essential marital obligations at the time of the marriage.
However, a spouse, who seeks to declare their marriage void based on the psychological incapacity of one spouse or both, should bear in mind that the allegations against the psychologically incapacitated spouse must point to an inability to assume basic marital obligations.
The mere difficulty, refusal, and neglect in performing marital obligations or even will not suffice.
In proving psychological incapacity, the Supreme Court had previously clarified that actual medical examination of the spouses need not be resorted to. The courts will consider the totality of the evidence presented by the person claiming the existence of psychological incapacity. As such, litigants may present evidence other than the testimony of an expert. At any rate, expert testimonies, while not indispensable, may still be used to establish the existence of a condition that suggests the inability of a spouse to comprehend his marital obligations.
These obligations include living together, observing mutual love, respect, and fidelity, rendering mutual help and support, fixing the family domicile, supporting and managing the household (Article 68 to 71, Family Code.). As it was not shown that the husband’s condition impaired his ability to discharge these obligations, the validity of the marriage was upheld.
