You are on page 1of 4

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.
Garcia’s 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.

citing baseless reasons. 170022 (2013). No. Toward his spouse. 185286 (2010). 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. Saldy Muncada is: “xxx paranoid. weak and gullible. 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. The communication between one another lessened as timed passed 4 G. He has difficulties in making decisions or doing things on his own. As clearly shown in this case. the Court has ruled that sexual infidelity and abandonment of conjugal dwelling per se are not grounds for psychological incapacity. 5 Villalon v. He is insecure. after Saldy’s employment contract in Canada expired.” In the case of Camacho-Reyes v.” Quoting the finding of the Dr.R. Toring.he believes they are wrong. volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other people. has difficulty doing things on his own. He is dependent. he still refused to go back to the Philippines to his wife Jenny. Republic of the Philippines v. petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around him. Encelan. 626 SCRA 389. has no cohesive self to speak of. He needs to be constantly reassured and supported.5 Looking into the fact of this instant case. with him contracting marriage in Canada even during the existence of his marriage with Jenny. 406. He is antisocial. 475 SCRA 572. he was absurdly jealous.” On the matter of Saldy’s infidelity. . He is irresponsible. G. Reyes.4 the Court in ruling the case. irritable and remorseless. has no sense of his identity as a person. Garcia. No. Even as an adolescent. and has no goals and clear direction in life. feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. it was apparent that he had poor relationships and was envious and hypersensitive.R. Villalon. Toring v.

Respondent Hamano left for Japan with a promise to his wife that he would be returning. is a clear manifestation of insensitivity and lack of respect for his wife and child which characterizes a very immature person. to the mind of the Court. Certainly. Respondent remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs and welfare of his family. Quintero-Hamano. upheld the RTC’s 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. 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. Further.” In sum.until Jenny lost contact with him altogether. respect and fidelity and rendering of mutual help and support as required by the family code.6 In Quintero-Hamano. The only time Jenny had any news of Saldy was when she received a copy of the Divorce filed by Saldy in Canada. after celebration of marriage and begetting a child. abandonment and failure to provide support by themselves are not sufficient grounds to establish psychological incapacity. . Respondent failed to return and even stopped sending financial support to his wife. such behavior could be traced to respondent’s mental incapacity and disability of entering into marital life. The Supreme Court in ruling over the petition. 149498 (2004). However. There is an additional requirement that must be clearly shown. 6 G. These behaviors must be indicative of the disordered personality of a spouse which renders that individual incapable in the discharge of his marital obligations. Such indifference. These are clear manifestations that Saldy is incapable of discharging his marital obligation of mutual love. No.R. jurisprudence provides that infidelity.