You are on page 1of 2

CHARACTERISTICS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

YAMBAO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 184063
January 24. 2011
Facts:
Petitioner Cynthia E. Yambao and respondent Patricio E.
Yambao married on December 21, 1968. On July 11, 2003, after 35
years of marriage and three children raised into adulthood,
petitioner filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court, Makati
City, praying the marriage be declared null and void due to her
husbands psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the
Family Code. Petitioner claims that her marriage is marred by
bickering, quarrels and recrimination because of the respondents
difficulty to find a stable job, failure in the family business, refusal
to change childrens diapers while petitioner was still recovering
from her Caesarean operation, insecurity and jealousy towards
acquaintances and relatives, eating and sleeping all day, gambling,
and threats to kill her. She then consulted with a psychiatrist who
concluded that the respondent suffered from Dependent
Personality Disorder. On February 9, 2007, the Regional Trial Court
dismissed the petition for lack of merit. On April 16, 2008, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Courts Decision;
hence, this petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the totality of petitioners evidence
establishes the respondents psychological incapacity to perform
the essential obligations of marriage.
Ruling:
No. Though there are existing antecedents, assumptions,
predilections, or generalizations, this case must be treated
uniquely, given its facts and idiosyncrasies. For marriage to be
annulled under Article 36 of the Family Code, it must be proven
that the incapacitated spouse manifested mental, not physical,
incapacity causing him or her to be truly incognitive of the basic
marital covenants. The spouse must suffer from a mental incapacity
so severe that he is and becomes unaware of his marital and
familial obligations. Psychological incapacity must be judged
according to:
(a) gravity,
(b)juridical antecedence, and
(c) incurability.

Article 36 considers incapacity or inability to take cognizance


of and to assume basic marital obligations as totally different from
mere difficulty, refusal, neglect or ill will in the performance of
marital obligations. Incapacity is defined as:
(a) true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of
marriage;
(b)this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential
obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community
of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the
procreation and education of offspring; and
(c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological
abnormality.
All marriages go through bickerings, quarrels and
recrimination and rough patches. In this case, the respondent may
not be the ideal husband for petitioners exacting standards but
they have gone through 35 years of marriage and have raised 3
children into adulthood without any major parenting problems.
Moreover, respondent never committed infidelity or physically
abused the petitioner or their children. These facts do not prove
psychological incapacity.

You might also like