Page 1 of 1 | Legal Research Psychological Incapacity (Case Synthesis) | amgisidro

Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines established a new ground to assail the validity of a marriage psychological
incapacity. Among the grounds for annulment of marriage, psychological incapacity is the more commonly used. It is also one of the
more controversial provisions of the Family Code:
Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.
Psychological incapacity is not a substitute for divorce. The theory behind it is that one or both of the spouses cannot discharge
one or more of the essential marital obligations, as provided under the Family Code. There is no boxed definition for psychological
incapacity as a ground for annulment. The Family Code did not provide a specific definition of the term psychological incapacity nor
did the Committee, who drafted the Family Code, give an example on psychological incapacity.
Nevertheless, psychological incapacity was defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Santos v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
112019, Jan. 4, 1995] as no less than a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants
that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. The intendment of the law has been to confine
the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Furthermore, in Santos case, the Supreme Court, denying
the decree of nullity of marriage, laid down three characteristics for determining psychological incapacity: (1) gravity; (2) juridical
antecedence; and (3) incurability.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals (Molina) [G.R. No. 108763, Feb. 13, 1997], the Supreme Court ruled that opposing and
conflicting personalities is not equivalent to psychological incapacity. Incorporating the three basic requirements earlier mandated in
Santos v. Court of Appeals, the high court established further guidelines in the judicial disposition of petitions for nullity under Article
36 of the Family Code:
(1) The burden of proof to show nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff;
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified; (b) alleged in the complaint; (c)
sufficiently proven by the experts; and (d) clearly explained in the decision;
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage;
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of the
marriage
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embrace by Articles 68-71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and
wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children;
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the Philippines, while not
controlling/decisive, should be given great respect by our courts; and
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State. No
decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification.
In Antonio v. Reyes [G.R. No. 155800, Mar. 10, 2006], the Supreme Court held that a pathological liar is considered as
psychological incapacity, having the guidelines set in Molina met.
The foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. What
is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the parties psychological condition. In Camacho-Reyes v.
Reyes [G.R. No. 185286, Aug. 18, 2010], the Supreme Court said that even without the experts conclusions, the respondents pattern
of behavior, as alleged in the petition and established during trial, all point to the inevitable conclusions that he is psychologically
incapacitated.
In the recent case of Kalaw v. Fernandez [G.R. No. 166357, Jan. 14, 2015], the Supreme Court reversed its September 2011
decision upon petitioners motion for reconsideration and declared that the marriage between the parties is void ab initio. It relaxed
the guidelines set in Molina and found that an expert opinion was ultimately necessary to enable the court to properly determine the
issue of psychological incapacity, holding that in the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity as a ground for the
nullity of marriage, the courts, which are concededly endowed with expertise in the field of psychology, must of necessity rely on the
opinions of experts in order to inform themselves on the matter, and thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and judicious
judgment.