2007] PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY REVISITED 393

Psychological Incapacity Revisited: A Review any doubt as to the validity of a marriage must be resolved in favor of the
marriage - semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.4 Because of this inviolability of
of Recent Jurisprudence marriage, it is perhaps unsurprising that several recent decisions of the
BernardJoseph B. Malibiran* Supreme Court have denied the declaration of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity. Beginning January of 2004 until April of 2007, the
Supreme Court dealt with several cases involving psychological incapacity.
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 392 Of ten decisions to be examined by this note, nine petitions for the
II. DENIAL OF DECLARATION OF NULLITY ............................................. 393 declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity were denied. With
A. Dedel v. Court qf Appeals these cases, the high Court had an opportunity, like a potter, to shape or
·.B. Republic v. Quintero-Harnano reshape this legal creature called psychological incapacity. Has psychological
C Carating-Siayngco v. Siayngco incapacity indeed taken new shape, or has its shape hardened, as mud turns
D:,Republic v. Iyoy to pottery? Noteworthy is the adamant position of the Supreme Court of
E. i(illalon v. Villalon protecting marriage as an institution, and denying several petitions for the
F. Republic v. Cuiso11-Melgar declaration of nullity.
G. Perez-Ferraris v. Ferraris This note examines these recent decisions in an effort to guide lay
H. tvlallion v. Alcantara people especially as to what may or may not constitute psychological
I. Narciso S. Navarro, Jr. v. Cynthia Cecilia-Navarro incapacity. Pre&torily, one must keep in mind that, despite these decisions,
III. GRANT OF DECLARATION OF NULLITY ............................................ 41 I the Court has emphasized that the detennination of the existence or
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 4I6 inexistence of psy.chological incapacity remains to be on a case-to-cast basis,
and thus depends heavily on the facts adduced for each case.S

II. DENIAL OF DECLARATION OF NULLITY

L INTRODUCTION
Marriage is a sacrosanct and inviolable institution that serves as the
foundation of the Philippine islands. No less than the fundamental law of the
land, the Constitution, protects this institution. 1 It even dedicates an entire
article solely on the family. 2 It is in this light that the highest court of the
land heavily guards against the dissolution of a marriage and the obliteration
of a family as if it neYer existed (or void ab initio)-3 Thus, it is a principle that
* 'o8 J.D. cand., Ateneo de Manila University School of Law; He is an editor and
a member of the Ext:cutive Committee of the AtenPo Law journal. He was also the
Lead Editor for the first issue of its 5m volume. He previously wrote Examining
Executive Privilege in Light •!f Executive Order No. 464: A Comment on Sen,Jte of tile
Philippines, eta/. v. Ermita, eta/., 51 ATENEO LJ. 212 (2006). The author would like
to acknowledge the help provided by Ms. Fides Sabio, Ms. Joy Stephanie C. Tajan,
Ms. Maria Cecilia G. Natividad & Ms. Regina Ann L. Nunato.
Cite asp ATENEO L.J. 392 (2007).
1. PHIL.CONST. art XV, § 2.
2. PHIL CONST. art XV.
3· Carating-Siayngco v. Siayngco, 441 SCRA 422, 436 (2004). The Supreme
Court states as its cardinal policy that "the state has a high stake in the
preservation of marriage rooted in its recognition of the sanctity of married life
All too often, relationships-married couples in particular---are best:t with
probkms. It is not uncommon to hear of broken and dysfunctional families.
Many times, it seems, these problems arise after the grandeur and romance of
fabulous or even very simple but beautiful weddings. Perhaps the pressures of
supporting a family and the heat of the daily grind cause married couples to
become less affe.:tionate to each other, and treat each other as scapegoats. Or
perhaps it is the failure of the couple to communicate with each other about
the other's needs. \Vhat~ver the reason may be, it is probably better left for
sociologists and psychologists to analyze. The legal question to consider
however is, what if one spouse is incapable psychologically of being in a
particular marriage from the very moment it was forged, albeit unknown to
the couple madly-in-love, and waiting to be awoken like a sleeping dragon!'
This seems to be the nature of psychological incapacity. Indeed, the Court
has fonnulated several guidelines to help both the Bench and the Bar in
detem1ining the existence or inexistence of psychological incapacity, the
most prominent of which are the doctrines laid down in Santos; and Molina. 7
and its mission to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social
instit:nion."
4· /d. at 437; Republic v. Quintero-Hamano, 428 SCRA 735, 740 (2004).
5· Perez-Ferraris v. Ferraris, 495 SCRA 396, 400 (2006).
6. Santos v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 20 (1995).