[The Unfulfilled Covenant and the Tragedy of Incomplete Characters] in GR 247798
The Supreme Court case of Javate-Asejo v. Asejo evokes profound biblical and literary themes centered on the sanctity and dissolution of covenants. At its heart lies the marriage contract, a modern parallel to sacred biblical covenants-such as that between God and His people-which are founded on mutual fidelity, complementary roles, and enduring commitment. The petitioner’s plea for nullity based on “psychological incapacity” mirrors the prophetic lament over a broken covenant, where one party fails to embody the essential attributes required for its fulfillment. The Court’s ultimate decision to uphold the marriage, reversing lower courts, reflects a judicial interpretation akin to a divine insistence on the covenant’s indissolubility, suggesting that mere failure or inadequacy, absent a grave, enduring, and incurable flaw rooted in the person’s very constitution, does not sever the sacred bond. This legal standard echoes the biblical tension between mercy for human frailty and the unwavering ideal of the marital promise.
Literarily, the narrative of Constancia and Justiniano reads as a tragedy of incomplete or incapable characters, reminiscent of figures in realist or naturalist fiction whose marriages disintegrate due to intrinsic personal flaws. Justiniano’s portrayal-as irresponsible, financially parasitic, and emotionally absent-paints him as a character fundamentally unable to perform the basic marital roles, much like a Shakespearean figure whose tragic flaw dooms a relationship. The legal concept of psychological incapacity requires a flaw so severe that it renders the person “incapable of complying with the essential marital obligations,” transforming the case into a forensic character study. The appellate court’s reversal, finding his faults not grave enough to meet this high threshold, underscores the tragic gap between human suffering and the narrow legal pathway to escape it, a theme explored in novels like Hardy’s Jude the Obscure, where social and legal bonds become prisons.
Ultimately, the case synthesizes these themes into a modern parable about the limits of law in adjudicating the human heart. The biblical ideal of an unbreakable union confronts the literary reality of deeply flawed individuals. The Supreme Court’s role becomes that of a stern narrator, insisting that for a covenant to be nullified, the psychological incapacity must be akin to a mythological curse-present from the beginning, beyond will or cure, and severe enough to void the very essence of the character. In denying the petition, the Court affirmed that not all marital failures, however painful, constitute the kind of foundational nullity that both canonical law and the Philippine Family Code envision, leaving the parties bound in a union that, legally and symbolically, persists despite its existential emptiness.
SOURCE: GR 247798; (January, 2023)
