Legal Research CASE SYNTHESIS- PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY In this jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has made several decisions

in enlightening the matter on Psychological Incapacity as a ground either in nullity or annulment of marriage (insofar as external manifestations are concerned) under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. In determining psychological incapacity, the court laid down the characteristics of psychological incapacity like gravity or seriousness of failure by a spouse in carrying out ordinary marital obligations; another is juridical antecedence or the incapacity is rooted in the history of the party prior to the marriage; last is incurability or even if it is curable, it would be beyond the means of the spouse. Psychological and not physical incapacity has been shown in a case (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA) wherein the unwillingness of a spouse or lack of intention in consummating the marriage would destroy the integrity of marriage by failure to fulfill the marital obligation of procreation. Also, odd or irregular lying about ones own personality constitutes psychological incapacity (Antonio vs. Reyes). Dependent personality disorder, or when a person is attached to his parents and dependent on them for decisions, is also considered a psychological incapacity in performing essential marital obligations by a person suffering from it. (Halili vs. Halili)

Moreover, Psychological incapacity refers to the most serious personality disorders that render the marriage short of meaning and significance, such incapacity is not a physical but mental. Therefore the absence and failure to communicate with his/her spouse for more than five years do not constitute psychological incapacity (Santos vs. CA). Irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities were not considered as psychological incapacity in performing essential marital obligations but more of a difficulty if not refusal or neglect in performing such obligations. Failure to meet pre-nuptial impressions is not indicative of antecedence (Republic vs. Molina). When a spouse subsequently ceased to be sweet, loving and caring, became a happy-go-lucky woman and eventually abandoning the other must be due to psychological illness that must be proven by competent evidence. Habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, abandonment as well as spending more time with friends than his own family do not by themselves be considered as psychological incapacity (Perez-Ferraris vs. Ferraris; Hernandez vs. CA). Infliction of physical abuse and failure to give support are not psychological incapacity if it was traced not to the inception of the marriage but because of some other factors like the subsequent unemployment for many years (Marcos vs. Marcos). Also, being a fugitive from justice does not tantamount to the nature of psychological incapacity (Republic vs. Dagdag).

When in comes to procedural requirements, the Supreme Court also provided some guidelines for psychological incapacity. Since psychological incapacity is a ground for either nullity or annulment of marriage, the cases of Enrico vs. Heirs of Spouses Medinaceli and De Dios Carlos vs. Sandoval must be considered in connection with the proper party who can file the case. Both cases discussed A.M. 02-11-10-SC wherein the said administrative matter states that only the husband or the wife, whoever is the injured spouse, can file a petition for nullity or annulment of their marriage. In the former case, the administrative matter was applied, but the heirs can still

protect their successional rights by challenging the marriage in settlement proceedings in the estate of the deceased spouse and not by filing a petition for a decree of nullity of the marriage of their deceased father with another woman. The latter case discussed that the administrative matter should apply prospectively and must not affect pending actions or cases filed before March 15, 2003.

The Supreme Court laid down in Molina case the guidelines in interpreting and applying Article 36. First, the burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence of marriage; second, root cause must be a.) medically or clinically identified, b.) alleged in the complaint, c.) sufficiently proven by experts and, d.) clearly explained in the decision; third, incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage; fourth, it must be medically or clinically incurable; fifth, it must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage; sixth, non-compliance with the marital obligations under articles 68-71,220-221 and 225 must be stated in the petition; seventh, interpretations by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines while not controlling, should be given respect and; eight, no decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a Certification stating his reasons for agreement or opposition to the case.

Psychological incapacity must be decided on a case-to-case basis, and as such, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines and by decisions of church tribunals (Halili vs. Halili). Expert testimonies should present the precise cause of psychological incapacity and to prove that it existed at the inception of marriage (Hernandez vs. CA). Psychological examination is not a requirement for declaring a person having a psychological incapacity. The more important thing is the pieces of evidence that can adequately establish a partys psychological condition (Marcos vs. Marcos). A subsequent case (Republic vs. Dagdag) still requires to comply with the guideline of Molina case, it was clarified in Bier vs. Bier that Marcos case relaxed the guidelines, but the totality of evidence must still prove psychological incapacity by establishing gravity, antecedence, and incurability. Testimonies cannot be considered sufficient evidence if these testimonies alone cannot prove that psychological incapacity was due to psychological illness (Bier vs. Bier).