Psychological Incapacity

1. What is “Psychological Incapacity”?

According to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the
time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his obligations of marriage, shall likewise be
void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
The Psychological Incapacity under Article 36 contemplates an incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
assume basic marital obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital
obligations or ill will. It consists of:

(a) A true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage;

(b) The inability must refer to the essential obligations of marriage, that is, the conjugal act, the community of life
and love, the rendering of mutual help, and the procreation and education of offspring; and

(c) The inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality.

It means that if one of the parties is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his obligation as a spouse, then the
marriage is void from the very beginning. That is why the legal remedy is to petition the court for nullity of the
marriage.

2. When can the ground of “Psychological Incapacity” be used in the nullity of marriage?
The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage. (Republic v.
Cabantug-Baguio, G.R. No. 171042, June 30, 2008)
These are disorders that result in the utter insensitivity or inability of the afflicted party to give meaning and
significance to the marriage he or she has contracted. (Toring v. Toring, G.R. No. 165321, August 3, 2010)

Psychological incapacity must refer to 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. (Navarro, Jr. v. Cecilio-Navarro, G.R. No. 162049, April 13, 2007)

3. How can I establish that there is Psychological incapacity in my marriage?

The Supreme Court had laid down the guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36:

a) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in
favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.

b) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.

c) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.

d) Such incapacity must be also shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.

e) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume essential obligations of
marriage.

f) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 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.

g) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines,
while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

h) 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, which will be quoted in
the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.

(Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997)

4. What are the elements of the Psychological Incapacity, for the marriage to be annulled?
The elements of Psychological incapacity are:

(a) Grave – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in a marriage;
(b) Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the
overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
(c) Incurable and Permanent – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved. (Dimayuga-Larena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159220, September 22 2008)
The Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity should refer to a mental incapacity that causes a party to be
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants such as those enumerated in Article 68 of the Family Code and must
be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. (Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No. 112019,
January 04 1995)

5. How is Psychological Incapacity usually manifested?

Some of the instances below are manifestations of Psychological Incapacity are:

(a) The refusal of one spouse to live, dwell or cohabit with the other spouse after marriage, without any fault at all
from the aggrieved spouse;

(b) By the deliberate refusal to give support to the other spouse, or their common children;

(c) When marriage is unbearable due to compulsive gambling, alcoholism, drug addiction or violent jealousy of the
spouse.

6. Would the above instances be enough to prove the existence of psychological incapacity?
The incapacity of the spouse must such that, that it prevents him from complying with the essential marital
obligations as stated in the Family Code, like:

(a) To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children though sexual cooperation is
the basic end of marriage;

(b) To live together under one roof for togetherness spells the unity in marriage (Article 68 of the Family Code)
(c) To observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, for love, sexual comfort and loyalty to one another are the basic
postulates of marriage (Article 68 of the Family Code of the Philippines)
(d) To render mutual help and support for assistance in necessities, both temporal and spiritual, is essential to
sustain the marriage. (Article 68 of the Family Code of the Philippines)
(e) To jointly support the family for the spouses are joint administrator in the partnership. (Article 70 of the
Family Code of the Philippines)
(f) Not to commit acts which will bring danger, dishonor or injury to each other or to the family for the safety and
security of the family at all times is a primordial duty of the spouses. (Article 72 of the Family Code of the
Philippines)

7. Would the presentation of an expert witness be enough to prove the existence of the psychological
incapacity in my marriage?
The presentation of expert proof in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity
presupposes a thorough and an in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist of expert, for a conclusive
diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. It is indispensable that the evidence
must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological
disorder itself. (Suazo v. Suazo, G.R. No. 164493, March 12, 2010)

The incapacity should be established by the totality of evidence presented during trial. (Bier v. Bier, G.R. No.
173294, February 27, 2008)

8. Is there a need for that the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated has been personally
examined by a physician or psychologist?
The Supreme Court held that, although there is no requirement that a party to be declared psychologically
incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist, there is a need to prove the psychological
incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person alleging such disorder. (Bier v. Bier, G.R. No.
173294, 27 February 2008)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be
personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua nonfor the declaration of nullity of
marriage based psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to
sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19 2000)
Correspondingly, the presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by
the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological
incapacity. (Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, 13 February 2009)

9. When does the action or defense for declaration of nullity prescribe?

The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage does not prescribe, regardless of whether or
not the marriage was celebrated before or after the effectivity of the Family Code.

10. My husband wouldn’t help me in the chores around the house, saying those are a woman’s job. Can I
use the ground of psychological incapacity in my petition for annulment against him?
No. It bears stressing that psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” “refusal” or “neglect” in the
performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party was incapable of doing so,
due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. (Marable v. Marable, G.R.
No. 178741, January 17, 2011)
The intention of the law is 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. (Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 04, 1995)
Proving that a spouse failed to meet his or her responsibility and duty as a married person is not enough; it is
essential that he or she must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness.

(Yambao v. Republic, G.R. No. 184063, January 24, 2011)

11. My husband started showing signs of being psychologically incapacitated about 4 years ago.
However, we had been married for 15 years, and all that time, he was the perfect husband. Can I use the
ground of psychological incapacity in my petition for nullity of my marriage?
No. The psychological incapacity must be proved to have been existing before the marriage. If after the marriage, the
ground of psychological incapacity cannot be used. The Supreme Court had repeatedly pronounced that the root cause
of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, with its incapacitating nature fully
explained and established by the totality of the evidence presented during the trial.

12. I have not been getting along with my wife for quite a while now. Can I allege psychological
incapacity as a ground for filing an annulment case against her?
No you cannot. What the law requires to render a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity is
downright incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty much less ill will. The mere showing of “irreconcilable
differences” and “conflicting personalities” does not constitute psychological incapacity. (Republic v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997)

13. If there is any doubt in my case for nullity of my marriage, how would the court resolve the case?
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution sets out a policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic
social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the
State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden
of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. (Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, G.R.No.
171042, 30 June 2008)

14. What will happen to the children if the petition for nullity of marriage has been granted on the ground
of psychological incapacity?
The children will still be considered legitimate. Children of marriages void under Article 36 (psychological incapacity)
and under Article 53 (second marriage without delivery of legitime to children of the first marriage) are considered
legitimate, as an exception to the general rule.
THE “RELAXATION” OF RULES IN DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
BASED ON PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
By: Atty.Fred | March 10, 2015 in Annulment and Legal Separation

15 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

“SC relaxes rules on psychological incapacity as ground to annul marriages,” says the news title in a popular
newspaper. While the news article does not mention the title of the case, it’s clearly abundant that it refers to the 2015
case of Valerio E. Kalaw vs. Ma. Elena Fernandez (G.R. No. 166357, 14 January 2015). Did the Supreme Court, in
the case of Kalaw, “relax” the rules on petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological
incapacity? Let’s discuss this question and, at the same time, highlight ten matters that may be of interest to those
seeking answers.

1. The rules provided in Molina remain valid

Practitioners refer to the guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36 as the Molina Doctrine,
considering that the set of guidelines were first compiled in the 1997 case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Roridel
Olaviano Molina (G.R. No. 108763). There are eight guidelines: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
marriage and against its dissolution and nullity; (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically
or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts and 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 marriage; (6) The essential marital obligations
must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 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 in the Philippines, while not controlling or 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.

In Kalaw, the Supreme Court reiterated its categorical statement, made in a 2009 case, that “we are not suggesting
the abandonment of Molina in this case.” The set of guidelines in Molina, therefore, stays.

The pronouncement in Kalaw that is closest to “relaxation” of the guidelines is its reiteration that the “foregoing
guidelines have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance practically condemned the petitions
for declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection.” There is no doubt that the Molina Doctrine is strict, but there
is also no doubt that countless petitions have been granted pursuant to its guidelines.

The Court did not “relax” the rules when it reconsidered the Kalaw ruling. On the contrary, the ruling falls under the
ambit of the Molina guidelines. The first time the Supreme Court decided Kalaw in 2011, with Justice Mariano C. Del
Castillo as the ponente, the Court dismissed the petition for insufficiency of evidence. There was no sufficient evidence
to prove the alleged acts of the respondent wife — “constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out
with friends, adultery, and neglect of their children.” While it was shown that the respondent-wife played mahjong
(bringing the kids with her), the petitioner-husband failed to show the FREQUENCY of the mahjong sessions. There
is no proof that the “mahjong sessions were so frequent that respondent neglected her family.” In other words, the
“allegations, which served as the bases or underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts, were not actually
proven.”

In 2015, with Justice Lucas Bersamin as ponente, the Supreme Court reconsidered its earlier decision. The Supreme
Court, “lest it be misunderstood,” explicitly stated that it’s not abandoning Molina. The Court, bound by the same set
of proven facts, clarified that the failure to show the frequency of mahjong sessions does not preclude a finding of
psychological incapacity. It’s not the FREQUENCY of the mahjong sessions; it’s the fact that the respondent-wife
should “have known that bringing her children along her children of very tender ages to her mahjong sessions would
expose them to a culture of gambling and other vices that would erode their moral fiber.” This, based on the totality of
facts in the case, supports the finding of psychological incapacity. This ruling is very much consistent with the Molina
Doctrine. There is no “relaxation” of the rules in this respect.

The label that the Court “relaxed” the rules is most likely derived from the Court’s statement that the rules set forth
in Molina are rigid. This is bolstered by the apparent expression of regret, also reiterated in Kalaw, that “in hindsight,
it may have been inappropriate for the Court to impose a rigid set of rules, as the one in Molina, in resolving all cases
of psychological incapacity.” In my opinion, and as discussed below, the term “rigid” should not be understood along
the lines of “relaxed” as an antonym.

2. Expert testimony is decisive

If there’s anything in Kalaw that can be construed as a “relaxation” or departure from the Molina Doctrine, it’s the rule
on expert witnesses. Guideline No. 2 in Molina provides that the “root cause of the psychological incapacity must be
medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the
decision.” However, it has been established in previous cases that expert testimony is not a requisite in psychological
incapacity cases. In other words, the absence of an expert witness does not automatically result to a denial of the
petition. In a number of cases, including the case of Mendoza vs. Republic (G.R. No. 157649, 12 November 2012),
the Supreme Court had the occasion to state that “the expert opinions of psychologists are not conditions sine qua
non in the granting of petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage,” although the Court added that “the actual medical
examination…was to be dispensed with only if the totality of evidence presented was enough to support a finding of
his psychological incapacity.” The requirement of the “totality of evidence” is also not new, having been discussed in
similar cases prior to Kalaw.

Going back to the value of expert testimonies, the Supreme Court in Kalaw restated the rule that “in the task of
ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts, which are
concededly not 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.” There is no “relaxation” of the rules in this respect.

Incidentally, in one of our cases, the judge noted that it is for the court — not the psychologist — to conclude that one
or both parties is/are psychologically incapacitated. Indeed, the existence of psychological incapacity is a legal
conclusion, which is within the exclusive province of the court, but this does not preclude the expert witness from
expressing a similar “opinion,” pointing to the exact condition or personality disorder of the spouse/s.

3. The psychologist need not personally examine the incapacitated spouse

The usual objection raised against the testimony of the expert witness, especially when the services of the expert
witness has been obtained by the petitioner-spouse and there is a conclusion that the respondent-spouse is
psychologically incapacitated, is the usual inability of the psychologist to examine or interview the respondent spouse.
In Kalaw, the Supreme Court reiterated the rule that “the lack of personal examination and interview of the person
diagnosed with personality disorder…did not per se invalidate the findings of the experts.” There is no “relaxation” of
the rules in this respect.

The opinion of the expert opinion should not be lightly brushed aside in the presence of the “totality of evidence” in
the case. This is the reason why, in the cases we are handling, we require the client to present other witnesses to
corroborate the client’s testimony on the facts which constitute the basis for the finding of the personality disorder and,
ultimately, psychological incapacity. While clients initially complain about the presentation of other witnesses, we make
it a point to carefully explain that this is needed to avoid an outright denial of the petition.

4. Article 36 is patterned after Church doctrines

It has been said that the Philippines is the only country in the whole world that does not have divorce. This, of course,
did not deter the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to make, in the language of the Supreme Court, an
“exaggeration” in Molina that Article 36 is the “most liberal divorce procedure in the world.” In Kalaw, the Supreme
Court noted that it was sensitive to the “exaggeration” of the OSG when it enunciated the “rigid” rules in Molina. “The
unintended consequences of Molina, however, has taken its toll on people who have to live with deviant behavior,
moral insanity and sociopathic personality anomaly, which, like termites, consume little by little the very foundation of
their families, our basic social institutions. Far from what was intended by the Court, Molina has become a strait-
jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound by it. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Court, in conveniently applying Molina,
has allowed diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to continuously debase
and pervert the sanctity of marriage. Ironically, the Roman Rota has annulled marriages on account of the personality
disorders of the said individuals.”

Article 36 is patterned after Church rules. As noted in Molina: “Since the purpose of including such provision in our
Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve
such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject
to our law on evidence — what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.”

5. Article 36 protects the family

The first guideline under Molina provides that “any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation
of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.” Marriage is protected under the Constitution and existing laws.
In case of DOUBT in petitions for nullity cases, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage. In other
words, the petition must be examined strictly in favor of the validity of marriage. If the issue can be resolved both ways
— for or against declaration of nullity — the issue must be resolved in favor of marriage, which means that petition
must be dismissed.

This Constitutional protection of marriage, however, does not apply to void marriages. As reiterated by the Supreme
Court in Kalaw, Article 36 protects the institution of marriage — “the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate for the
State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution only relates to a valid marriage. No protection can be
accorded to a marriage that is null and void ab initio, because such a marriage has no legal existence.”

“Indeed, Article 36 of the Family Code, in classifying marriages contracted by a psychologically incapacitated person
as a nullity, should be deemed as an implement of this constitutional protection of marriage. Given the avowed State
interest in promoting marriage as the foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the foundation of the nation,
there is a corresponding interest for the State to defend against marriages ill-equipped to promote family life. Void ab
initio marriages under Article 36 do not further the initiatives of the State concerning marriage and family, as they
promote wedlock among persons who, for reasons independent of their will, are not capacitated to understand or
comply with the essential obligations of marriage.”

Here’s the dilemma that I see: the determination whether the marriage is void (in which case it loses any protection
under the Constitution) is done at the latter part of the trial (the decision), while the application of the presumption of
the validity of marriage (as well as the strict interpretation in favor of validity) exists at the time of filing of the very
same petition.

In my opinion, there is no inconsistency, and there is no “relaxation” of the rules. A presumption can always be
overturned by contrary evidence. Once contrary evidence is admitted and the marriage is declared void, then the
presumption loses any value and the marriage cease to be constitutionally protected. Under this scenario, it does not
help to be saddled with presumptions (or assumptions, predilections or generalizations) at the start of the petition.
The task is to examine the evidence and look at the “totality of the case.” In the words of the Supreme Court, “we
reiterate once more the principle that each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections
or generalizations but according to its own facts.” There should be no rigid application of Molina and “Article 36 of the
Family Code must not be so strictly and too literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the drafters to
adopt its enacted version of less specificity obviously to enable some resiliency in its application.”

6. Article 36 has no definition

Psychological incapacity is characterized as “as a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even prior to the celebration of the marriage that is
permanent as to deprive the party of the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or
she was about to assume.”

However, the Family Code has not defined the term psychological incapacity. The committee that drafted the Family
Code decided to adopt a provision “with less specificity than expected” in order to have the law “allow some resiliency
in its application.” The intent of the commitee is to give courts sufficient leeway to “interpret the provision on a case-
to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and the
decisions of church tribunals that had persuasive effect by virtue of the provision itself having been taken from the
Canon Law.”

The intended resiliency of Article 36 “had, somehow, been rendered ineffectual by the imposition of a set of strict
standards in Molina,” yet the Supreme Court still maintains that it is not abandoning Molina.

7. One or both spouses can be psychologically incapacitated

In the Kalaw case, the petitioner-husband alleges that the respondent-wife is psychologically incapacitated. The wife,
in her answer, denies her psychological incapacity and alleges that the husband is the one psychologically
incapacitated. Both spouses presented expert witnesses to support each other’s allegation that the other spouse is
psychologically incapacitated.

In the original Kalaw case, the Court focused solely on the psychological incapacity of the wife, concluding that there
was insufficient evidence; the Court did not discuss the incapacity of the husband. This appears to be consistent with
the first guideline in Molina — the “burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.”

In the reconsidered Kalaw case, the Court declared BOTH spouses as psychologically incapacitated. While it can be
argued that this is a deviation, or “relaxation,” of the rule that was followed in the original Kalaw case, there is no basis
for such argument.

As a rule, the burden of proving the existence of psychological incapacity is with the petitioner. This is based on the
basic rule that he who alleges must prove the allegation. This basic rule, stated in another manner, simply means that
the person who alleges psychological incapacity must prove such psychological incapacity.

Under the circumstances, the court has three options: (a) declare the WIFE as psychologically incapacitated; (b)
declare the HUSBAND as psychologically incapacitated; or (c) declare BOTH spouses as psychologically
incapacitated. It doesn’t matter who raised the allegation of psychological incapacity. In the words of the Supreme
Court in the reconsidered decision: “The courts are justified in declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36 of
the Family Code regardless of whether it is the petitioner or the respondent who imputes the psychological incapacity
to the other as long as the imputation is fully substantiated with proof. Indeed, psychological incapacity may exist in
one party alone or in both of them, and if psychological incapacity of either or both is established, the marriage has to
be deemed null and void.”

As far as remarriage is concerned, it doesn’t really matter who between the spouses is psychologically incapacitated
— there is absolutely no prohibition for the psychologically incapacitated spouse to marry again.

Let’s consider a number of scenarios. What if, in another case, the husband alleges that the wife is psychologically
incapacitated and the wife simply denies such allegation, without replying that the husband is the one psychologically
incapacitated? What if the husband alleges that wife is psychologically incapacitated and the wife fails to answer? If,
for one reason or another, evidence shows that there is no basis for finding that the wife is psychologically
incapacitated, but sufficient evidence exists to support a finding of psychological incapacity on the part of the husband,
can the court still declare the existence of the psychological incapacity, albeit on the part of the husband?

8. Trial court decision is binding

In the original Kalaw case, the Supreme Court concluded that there is “no factual basis for the conclusion of
psychological incapacity…The trial court’s Decision merely summarized the allegations, testimonies, and evidence of
the respective parties, but it did not actually assess the veracity of these allegations, the credibility of the witnesses,
and the weight of the evidence. The trial court did not make factual findings which can serve as bases for its legal
conclusion of psychological incapacity.

In reconsidering its earlier decision in Kalaw, the Supreme Court cited the general rule that “findings of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) on the existence or non-existence of a party’s psychological incapacity should be final and binding
for as long as such findings and evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses and other evidence are not shown to be
clearly and manifestly erroneous. In every situation where the findings of the trial court are sufficiently supported by
the facts and evidence presented during trial, the appellate court should restrain itself from substituting its own
judgment.”

9. There are sufficient safeguards to protect marriage

Without a divorce law, and with the perceived “relaxation” of the rules on petitions for declaration of nullity, it’s normal
to be apprehensive about the deluge of cases that will choke court dockets. This possible onslaught might also be
interpreted as an attack on the institution of marriage.

In EACH and EVERY petition for annulment or declaration of nullity, the State (through the OSG and the public
prosecutors) is mandated by law to participate and ensure that the institution of marriage is amply protected. According
to the Supreme Court, it “need not worry about the possible abuse of the remedy provided by Article 36, for there are
ample safeguards against this contingency, among which is the intervention by the State, through the public
prosecutor, to guard against collusion between the parties and/or fabrication of evidence. The Court should rather be
alarmed by the rising number of cases involving marital abuse, child abuse, domestic violence and incestuous rape.”

10. Other perspectives for Article 36

The Supreme Court took pains to stress in Kalaw, again pointing to an earlier case, that it is “not suggesting the
abandonment of Molina in this case.” It is not accurate to say that the Supreme Court “relaxed” the psychological
incapacity guidelines in Kalaw. Matters that can be interpreted in Kalaw as a “relaxation” of the rules have been taken
up in previous cases. Kalaw simply reiterates those principles.

What the Supreme Court again pointed out in Kalaw is the need to emphasize “other perspectives” that should guide
courts in dealing with petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

What are the “other perspectives”? The Supreme Court noted that Article 36 cases should not be decided based on
“a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations” and emphasized that “courts should interpret the provision on
a case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and
by decisions of church tribunals.”

This, in my opinion, means that “other perspectives” can run parallel to the Molina guidelines. In other words,
the Molina Doctrine is not the be-all and end-all of Article 36 interpretation. The intention not to define Article 36 simply
means that the provision should not be static; it is intended to be a “living” provision, with courts “guided by experience,
the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.”

Cases that don’t fall squarely under the Molina guidelines should not be dismissed outright. A “rigid” interpretation
of Molina means that petitions must be strictly construed in favor of the validity of marriage and any deviation from the
guidelines, no matter how reasonable, must lead to the dismissal of the petition. But it should be remembered that a
void marriage enjoys no protection and not entitled to any presumption of regularity, which means that even if a
particular case does not fall squarely under the Molina principles, the court must still examine the “totality of evidence”
and must apply “other perspectives.” This way, “diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists
and the like” will not be allowed to “continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of marriage.”
GUIDELINES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY (ARTICLE 36, FAMILY CODE)
By: jlp | July 22, 2006 in Annulment and Legal Separation

29 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

Psychological incapacity, which a ground for annulment of marriage (which is different from divorce), contemplates
downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal,
neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting
personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or
perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity.

Among the grounds for annulment of marriage, psychological incapacity is the more (if not the most) commonly used.
It is also one of the more controversial provisions of the Family Code(Article 36). The guidelines (shortened here) in
the interpretation and application of Article 36 were handed down by the Supreme Court in Molina:

1. The plaintiff (the spouse who filed the petition in court) has burden of showing the nullity of the marriage. Our laws
cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family, so any doubt is resolved in favor of the existence/continuation
of the marriage.

2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may
be physical. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must
show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness need not
be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same
sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those
not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be
accepted as root causes.

6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 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.
Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the
text of the decision.

7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while
not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

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, which will be quoted in the
decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.

Let’s examine some recent Supreme Court cases on what constitutes or doesn’t constitute psychological incapacity.

In Antonio vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 155800, 10 March 2006), the Supreme Court sustained the nullity of the marriage
based on the psychological incapacity of the wife (respondent). As concluded by the psychiatrist, the wife’s repeated
lying is abnormal and pathological, and amounts to psychological incapacity (for the “digest” or a more detailed
discussion of the case, click here).
On the other hand, in Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano (G.R. No. 149498, 20 May 2004), the wife alleged taht her
husband, a Japanese, failed to meet his duty to live with, care for and support his family. He abandoned them a month
after the marriage. The wife sent him several letters but he never replied. He made a trip to the Philippines but did not
care at all to see his family. However, while the husband’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible, it was
never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. Aside from the abandonment, no other
evidence was presented showing that the husband’s behavior was caused by a psychological disorder. It’s not enough
to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be
shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness.

Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual medical examination, it would have greatly helped the wife’s case
had she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified his illness. This could have been done through an
expert witness.

IDENTIFY THE GROUND. The first step to getting your marriage annulled is to identify the ground you can

prove in court. Philippine law allows the annulment of marriage based on any of the following grounds:
1. Minority and lack of parental consent
2. Insanity
3. The consent was obtained through fraud, force, intimidation or undue influence
4. Physical incapacity to consummate the marriage which is incurable
5. Affliction with a sexually-transmitted disease which is serious and incurable
6. Psychological incapacity
As most annulment cases nowadays are based on psychological incapacity, I find the need to discuss this in

detail.

DEFINITION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. There is no boxed definition for psychological

incapacity as a ground for annulment. Whenever a client asks, my simple answer would be that it refers to a

spouse’s inability or unwillingness to comply with the essential marital obligations.

WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS? The Family Code enumerates the marital

obligations as follows:(a) To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children

though sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage;(b) To live together under one roof for togetherness

spells the unity in marriage (Article 68 of the Family Code)(c) To observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,

for love, sexual comfort and loyalty to one another are the basic postulates of marriage (Article 68 of the Family

Code of the Philippines)(d) To render mutual help and support for assistance in necessities, both temporal and

spiritual, is essential to sustain the marriage. (Article 68 of the Family Code of the Philippines)(e) To jointly
support the family for the spouses are joint administrator in the partnership. (Article 70 of the Family Code of

the Philippines)(f) Not to commit acts which will bring danger, dishonor or injury to each other or to the

family for the safety and security of the family at all times is a primordial duty of the spouses. (Article 72 of the
Family Code of the Philippines)

In the many annulment cases we have handled, the psychological incapacity is manifested in a spouse’s refusal

to live with the other spouse without any fault from the aggrieved spouse, the deliberate refusal to give support,

and the compulsive gambling, jealousy or alcohol addiction which makes the marriage unbearable.

It can be a variety of reasons and more often than not, even if the petitioner believes that he or she has not done

anything wrong, expert opinion will prove otherwise.

IS A PSYCHIATRIST ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IN ANNULMENT PROCEEDINGS? An annulment

case may proceed with or without a psychiatrist who will testify in court regarding the psychological state of the

parties. But common sense dictates that an expert opinion bears great weight especially if your aim is to prove a

“state of mind’ in court. That said, despite the Molina guidelines, or despite a thorough narration of the marital
history which makes the incapacity obvious, I do not suggest going to court without the aid of an able expert

witness.
Psychological Incapacity as Grounds for Annulment
Source: Law Center Philippines
Psychological incapacity, which a ground for annulment of marriage (which is different from divorce),
contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital
obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical
abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do
not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity.

Among the grounds for annulment of marriage, psychological incapacity is the more (if not the most)
commonly used. It is also one of the more controversial provisions of the Family Code (Article 36). The
guidelines (shortened here) in the interpretation and application of Article 36 were handed down by the
Supreme Court in Molina:

1. The plaintiff (the spouse who filed the petition in court) has burden of showing the nullity of the
marriage. Our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family, so any doubt is resolved in
favor of the existence/continuation of the marriage.

2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged
in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36
of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. Expert evidence may be given by qualified
psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. The
evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The
manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have
attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise
of a profession or employment in a job.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional
emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes.

6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 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. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition,
proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

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, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement
or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.

Psychological Incapacity as Grounds for Annulment

Let’s examine some recent Supreme Court cases on what constitutes or doesn’t constitute
psychological incapacity.

In Antonio vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 155800, 10 March 2006), the Supreme Court sustained the nullity of the
marriage based on the psychological incapacity of the wife (respondent). As concluded by the
psychiatrist, the wife’s repeated lying is abnormal and pathological, and amounts to psychological
incapacity (for the “digest” or a more detailed discussion of the case, click here).
On the other hand, in Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano (G.R. No. 149498, 20 May 2004), the wife alleged
taht her husband, a Japanese, failed to meet his duty to live with, care for and support his family. He
abandoned them a month after the marriage. The wife sent him several letters but he never replied. He
made a trip to the Philippines but did not care at all to see his family. However, while the husband’s act
of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible, it was never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind
of psychological illness. Aside from the abandonment, no other evidence was presented showing that
the husband’s behavior was caused by a psychological disorder. It’s not enough to prove that a spouse
failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to
be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness.
Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual medical examination, it would have greatly helped
the wife’s case had she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified his illness. This could
have been done through an expert witness.