In Santos v.

Court of Appeals, the Court declared that psychological

incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability. The Court emphasized that it should
refer "no less than a mental, not physical, 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.
In the case of Azcueta v. Republic of the Philippines and the Court of
Appeals,1 the Court ruled that one who cannot contribute to the material,
physical and emotional well-being of his spouse is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations within the meaning of
Article 36. In Azcueta, Respondent suffered from dependent personality
disorder, rendering him incapable of making his own opinions and carrying
on his responsibilities as a husband. Similarly, Saldy Muncada based on Dr.
Garcias psychiatric evaluation suffers from the same disorder. 2 Salvador
lacked motivation and needed a lot of push and support from the people
around him. He stayed jobless for a time and was only able to get work
through the help of his brother, Pedro Muncada, Jr. Likewise, Saldy even after
being employed, refused to provide for his wife, Jenny. Instead, he used his
salary to support his drinking vice. He continually refused to perform his
obligations as a husband.
In Te v. Te,3 the Court expounded on the nature of a dependent
personality disorder and how one afflicted with such a disorder would be
incapacitated from complying with marital obligations, to wit:
Indeed, petitioner, who is afflicted with
dependent personality disorder, cannot assume the
essential marital obligations of living together,
observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering
help and support, for he is unable to make everyday
decisions without advice from others, allows others
to make most of his important decisions (such as
where to live), tends to agree with people even when
1 G.R. No. 180668 (2009).
2 The Psychiatric Evaluation of the Spouses, Salavador Saldy Tan Muncada and
Jenny Lynn Ang-Muncada attached as Annex L of the Petition for Declaration of
Nullity, p. 20.
3 G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009.

he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing

things on his own, volunteers to do things that are
demeaning in order to get approval from other
people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone
and is often preoccupied with fears of being
abandoned. As clearly shown in this case, petitioner
followed everything dictated to him by the persons
around him. He is insecure, weak and gullible, has
no sense of his identity as a person, has no cohesive
self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction
in life.

In the case of Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes,4 the Court in ruling the case,

affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court that antisocial personality
disorder with narcissistic and dependent features renders the respondent too
immature and irresponsible to assume the normal obligations of a
marriage. Quoting the finding of the Dr. Garcia, Saldy Muncada is: xxx
paranoid. Even as an adolescent, it was apparent that he had poor
relationships and was envious and hypersensitive. Toward his spouse, he was
absurdly jealous. He is antisocial. He is irresponsible, irritable and
remorseless. He is dependent. He needs to be constantly reassured and
supported. He has difficulties in making decisions or doing things on his
own.

On the matter of Saldys infidelity, with him contracting marriage in

Canada even during the existence of his marriage with Jenny, the Court has
ruled that sexual infidelity and abandonment of conjugal dwelling per se are
not grounds for psychological incapacity. The Court ruled that in in order for
sexual infidelity and abandonment be considered as grounds for
psychological incapacity it must be shown that they are manifestations of a
disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from
discharging the essential marital obligations.5 Looking into the fact of this
instant case, after Saldys employment contract in Canada expired, he still
refused to go back to the Philippines to his wife Jenny, citing baseless
reasons. The communication between one another lessened as timed passed
4 G.R. No. 185286 (2010).
5 Villalon v. Villalon, 475 SCRA 572, Toring v. Toring, 626 SCRA 389, 406, Republic of
the Philippines v. Encelan, G.R. No. 170022 (2013).

until Jenny lost contact with him altogether. The only time Jenny had any
news of Saldy was when she received a copy of the Divorce filed by Saldy in
Canada. These are clear manifestations that Saldy is incapable of
discharging his marital obligation of mutual love, respect and fidelity and
rendering of mutual help and support as required by the family code.

Further, when Respondent Muncada left his wife for Canada with a promise to
provide support his wife and with plans that Petitioner Muncada would follow
him abroad is comparable to the case of Republic v. Quintero-Hamano.6 In
Quintero-Hamano, after celebration of marriage and begetting a child,
Respondent Hamano left for Japan with a promise to his wife that he would
be returning. However, Respondent failed to return and even stopped
sending financial support to his wife. The Supreme Court in ruling over the
petition, upheld the RTCs finding that:

It is clear from the records of the case that respondent

spouses [sic] failed to fulfill his obligations as husband of
the petitioner and father to his daughter. Respondent
remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs
and welfare of his family. Such indifference, to the mind of
the Court, is a clear manifestation of insensitivity and lack
of respect for his wife and child which characterizes a
very immature person. Certainly, such behavior could be
traced to respondents mental incapacity and disability of
entering into marital life.

In sum, jurisprudence provides that infidelity, abandonment and failure

to provide support by themselves are not sufficient grounds to establish
psychological incapacity. There is an additional requirement that must be
clearly shown. These behaviors must be indicative of the disordered
personality of a spouse which renders that individual incapable in the
discharge of his marital obligations.

6 G.R. No. 149498 (2004).