Can a spouse who has an extramarital affair file for a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage? In law, we have the principle of unclean hands. A complainant is not entitled to the relief sought when he himself acted unethically. Seems fair and sounds correct, right? Why should a party be granted the relief of annulment when he himself is at fault? Fairness and equity dictate that no relief be accorded him.
Such is one of the issues in the recent case of Fernando C. Clavecilla, represented by Atty. Marvel C. Clavecilla vs Marivic V. Clavecilla and the Republic of the Philippines (G.R. 228127 promulgated on 6 March 2023). In this case, the husband filed for nullity on the ground of his own psychological incapacity. The wife vehemently contested the action arguing among other things, that her husband has extramarital affairs and filed it only to free himself from the marriage.
After the trial, the court ruled in favor of the husband. The wife then, after the court rejected her plea for reconsideration, elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court then took the side of the wife. Of course, the issue-resolution did not end there. The husband, this time, sought help from the Supreme Court. The wife, among many other issues, again made an issue of the unclean hands doctrine.
To that, the Highest Court said: “Marivic avers that petitioner came to court with unclean hands, having engaged in extramarital affairs and, thereafter, claimed to be psychologically incapacitated in order to break free from the marriage bond. As such, he should not be allowed the benefit of his own misdeed. The Court would like to clarify that although sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation under Arti. 55 of the Family Code, it may be deemed as a manifestation of psychological incapacity.”
“Castillo v. Republic elucidated that there must be evidence linking unfaithfulness with the inability to perform essential spousal obligations. Accordingly, the allegation of marital infidelity cannot be automatically ruled as an invalid ground to declare marriage ab initio. If the alleged sexual infidelity stemmed from the psychological incapacity of the unfaithful spouse, then it can be a valid ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code.”
“Another point that needs further elucidation concerns Marivic’s reference to the principle of unclean hands as a bar against a purported psychologically incapacitated spouse to initiate a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. The doctrine of unclean hands originated from the maxim he who comes into equity must come there with clean hands. It is a frequently stated maxim that is also expressed in the principle that he or she who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his or her conduct has been inequitable, unfair, dishonest, fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. Equity refuses to offer its aid in any manner to one seeking its active interposition who has been guilty of unlawful or inequitable conduct in the matter with relation to which he seeks relief.”
Bear in mind though that the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply to psychological incapacity cases only because there is no guilty party.
“However, the general principle that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands applies only to the plaintiff’s conduct in relation to the very matter in litigation. The want of equity that will bar a right to equitable relief for coming into court with unclean hands must be so directly connected with the matter in litigation that it has affected the equitable relations of the parties arising out of the transaction in question… the Court does not see any reason why the principle of unclean hands should prevent a psychologically incapacitated spouse from initiating a proceeding to annul a marriage.”
“This is because there is no party at fault in case of annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Culpability cannot be imputed on the part of the spouse said to be psychologically incapacitated since it is not deliberate or intentional on his or her part to possess such a personality trait. By reason of psychological incapacity, it cannot be said that bad faith had motivated the afflicted spouse to enter into a marriage or to even seek a declaration of nullity. It must be emphasized that the unclean hands’ doctrine only avails in cases of inequity, which does not exist in a marriage sought to be annulled on the basis of psychological incapacity of a spouse to comprehend and discharge the concomitant marital obligations.”
Clear as day then. Bear in mind though that the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply to psychological incapacity cases only because there is no guilty party. It is not the fault of the petitioner if he is psychologically incapacitated, a manifestation of which may be his infidelity.
The facts and citations are from the case cited above.