Article 36.

Psychological incapacity
Case Facts Issue Relevant Laws Holding
Kalaw vs Petitioner Valerio Kalaw (Tyrone) and Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) were married in Whether Article 36. No. Petitioner failed
Fernandez November 1976. They had four children namely Rio, Ria, Miggy, and Jay. petitioner Psychological to prove that his wife
G.R. has incapacity – A suffers from
166357, Tyrone, had an extramarital affair with a certain Jocelyn Quijano, who gave birth to a sufficiently marriage psychological
September son in 1983. proved that contracted by incapacity.
19, 2011 respondent any party, who
In May 1985, Malyn left their conjugal homes (Kalaw in-laws) and left their children suffers from at the time of There is no error in
with Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with Jocelyn who bore him three more psychologic the celebration, the CA’s reversal of
children. al incapacity was the trial court ruling
psychologically that there was
In 1990, Tyrone went to the U.S with Jocelyn and their children. His children with incapacitated to psychological
Malyn was left in a rented house in Valle Verde with only a driver and a househelp, comply with the incapacity. The trial
who would call Malyn in case any of the children got sick. Also, according to their essential court merely
custody agreement, the children stayed with her during the weekends. marital summarized the
obligations of allegations,
On July 1994, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity based on Article 36 of marriage, shall testimonies, and
the Family Code alleging Malyn as psychologically incapacitated to perform and likewise be void evidence of the
comply with the essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of their even if such respective parties,
marriage. incapacity but did not actually
becomes assess the veracity of
Petitioner’s version (Tyrone) manifest only the allegations, the
Malyn’s psychological incapacity was shown in the following acts: after its credibility of the
1. She left the children without proper case as she played mahjong all day and solemnization. witnesses, and the
all night; weight of the
2. She left the house to party with male friends and returned in the early evidence. The trial
hours of the next day; and court did not make
3. She committed adultery on June 9, 1985, which Tyrone discovered in Psychological factual findings which
flagrante delicto. incapacity is the can serve as basis for
downright its legal conclusion of
During trial, Tyrone narrated that on June 9, 1985, he and his brother-in-law, Ronald incapacity or psychological
Fernandez, proceeded to Hyatt Hotel and learned that Malyn was occupying a room inability to take incapacity. There may
with a certain Benjie Guevarra. When he proceeded to the room, he saw Benjie cognizance of be grounds for legal
wearing only a towel in his waist and Malyn in bed in her underwear. After an and to assume separation but
exchange of words, Tyrone agreed not to charge Malyn with adultery if she agrees to the basic certainly not
relinquish all her marital and parental rights. They put the agreement in writing marital psychological
before Atty. Jose Palarca. obligations. The incapacity with voids
burden of a marriage.
Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristine Gates, and a Catholic canon law expert proving
Fr. Gerard Healy to testify on Malyn’s psychological incapacity. psychological Petitioner presented
incapacity is on two expert witnesses
Dr. Gates explained that Malyn’s behavior may reflect a narcissistic personality the plaintiff. to prove that
disorder (NPD). NPD is present when a person is obsessed to meet her wants and respondent has
needs in utter disregard of her significant other. In this case, neglect of her duties as a psychological
mother. He also reported that Malyn’s personality disorder may have been present incapacity. However,
even before the marriage and is rooted in her family background and upbringing as testimonies on the
she was materially deprived and has no proper maternal role model. alleged behavior of
the respondents were
Fr. Healy agreed with Dr. Gates’ statement, explaining that Malyn’s psychological not proven.
incapacity was rooted in her role as a breadwinner. This role inflated her ego to a
point that her needs become priority while her family is secondary. For instance,
petitioner alleged
Respondent’s contention (Malyn) that respondent
Malyn denied being psychologically incapacitated. She only played mahjong two to constantly played
three times a week between 1-6pm, with Tyrone’s permission and would bring with mahjong with her
her the children. friends. Respondent
admittedly playing
She left their conjugal home to escape her physically abusive husband. She also mahjong but not so
denied the allegations of adultery by saying she only booked a room in Grand Hyatt frequently as to
hotel because she was too drunk. She confirmed being seen by Tyrone and her neglect her duty as a
brother but she was fully clothed and only wrote the letter relinquishing her marital mother and wife. She
and parental rights under duress. even argued that this
only happened two to
three times a week,
As a defense, Malyn claimed that it was Tyrone suffering from psychological with consent of
incapacity manifested by his drug dependence, habitual drinking, womanizing and Tyrone, and without
physical violence. She presented Dr. Dayan, a cilincal psychologist, as her expert abandoning their
witness. children. The children
affirmed this saying
Dr. Dayan interviewed Tyrone, Malyn, Miggy, Jay, and Ria for the psychological they were with Malyn
evaluation of the spouses. Her diagnostic impression is that their marriage was a when she plays
mistake from the very beginning. They were not truly ready for the marriage. Malyn mahjong.
became too dependent on their relationship and as a result, Tyrone became
overwhelmed with the commitment of marriage. Dr. Dayan then elaborated that There is also no
Malyn had good relationship with the kids and that Tyrone has commitment issues sufficient evidence
and is psychologically incapacitated to perform his duties as a husband. that the respondent is
suffering from NPD,
Children’s version thus no basis for
All the children stated that both parents took care of them, and provided for their concluding she was
needs. They also mentioned Malyn being present during times when they were sick. psychologically
The two elder kids remembered the fight between their parents but it was only Ria incapacitated. The
who saw the physical abuse done to Malyn. totality of the
evidence showed that
Other witnesses respondent was able
Dr. Cornelio Banaag (Tyrone’s psychiatrist) – testified that he tested negative for drug to perform her duties
use and was not drug dependent as a mother.

Malyn’s brother – testified that they did not enter the room in Grand Hyatt and does
not recall seeing Malyn or Benjie naked

Mario calma (allegedly Malyn’s friend) – stated their group would go on night out and
Malyn would meet with male friends afterwards

Social worker
The trial court ordered a social worker, Jocelyn Arre, to conduct a social case study on
their family. Arre suggested Malyn should get custody of the children. She argued
that Malyn was more available to the children and actually tended to their needs
while Tyrone prioritized his second family

Ruling of Regional Trial Court

Declared the parties’ marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
Code. Both parties failed to commit themselves to their essential marital obligations
constituting phycological incapacity which was found to be grave, pervasive and
incurable.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Malyn appealed the trial court’s decision. CA reversed trial courts’ ruling stating the
facts do not support the finding of psychological incapacity. It only pictures the
parties’ immaturity and irresponsibility. At most, there may be grounds for legal
separation. Moreover, petitioner’s expert witness failed to explain how the diagnosis
of NPD was drawn from his sources. It failed to satisfy legal and jurisprudential
requirements for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Petitioner’s argument
Tyrone argues that the CA erred in disregarding factual findings of the court. He
opined that he has presented Dr. Gates and Fr. Healy’s testimonies as preponderant
evidence, to show respondent suffered from NPD.

Respondent’s argument
Malyn argues that testimonies of their children as well as the findings of the court’s
social worker proved that she was a good mother. She assails Dr. Gates report as
one-sided because she was not interviewed and that Fr. Healy’s testimony was only
based on Tyrone’s version of facts.

Almost four years after filing memorandum, respondent had a change of heart and
filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Withdraw Comment and
Memorandum. She no longer disputes the possibility of their marriage as void on the
basis of Tyrone’s psychological incapacity.
Kalaw vs Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the court to take a thorough Article 36. A
Fernandez second look into what constitutes psychological incapacity, to uphold findings of the marriage
G.R. trial court as well as the testimonies of the three expert witnesses (Dr. Gates, Fr. contracted
166357, Healy, & Dr. Dayan); and to find that the respondent, if not both parties, were by any
January psychologically incapacitated. Motion was granted. party, who
14, 2015 I at the time
The court took note that the Family Code Revision Committee adopted the Art 36 of of the
the Family code “with less specificity than expected” by omission to provide celebration,
examples of psychological incapacity, which would have limited the applicability of was
the provision conformably with the principle of ejusdem generis, because the psychologic
Committee desired the courts to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis. ally
incapacitate
The court observed in Santos v. Court of Appeals that psychological incapacity “has d to comply
not been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses, as mentioned with the
by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like essential
circumstances” and could not be taken and construed independently of “but must marital
stand in conjunction with existing precepts in our law on marriage.” Thus correlated, obligations
psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental incapacity that causes a of marriage,
party to be truly cognitive covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and shall
discharged by the parties to the marriage, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family likewise be
Code. There is hardly no doubt that the intendment of the law has been to define void even if
psychological incapacity to the most serious of personality disorders clearly such
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to incapacity
the marriage. The court also mentioned Article 54 of the Family code which considers becomes
children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to manifest
be “legitimate.” only after
its
In time, in Republic v. Court of Appeals, guidelines were set as to the interpretation solemnizati
of Article 36 of the Family Code, which follows: on
1. The burden of proof to show nullity of marriage is in the plaintiff. Any
doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence of marriage and against Article 54.
its dissolution and nullity. Children
2. The root cause of psychological incapacity must be (a) medically/clinically born before
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts, the
and (d) clearly explained in the decision. judgement
3. Incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of celebration” of of
marriage. Manifestation may not be perceivable at the time, but the illness annulment
must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto. or absolute
4. Incapacity must be clinically permanent or incurable. Also, incapacity must nullity of
be relevant to assumption of marital obligations, not necessarily to those the
not related to marriage (a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing marriage
illnesses of children, but may be psychologically incapacitated to procreate under
or assume marital obligations) Article 36
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about disability to assume has become
marital obligations (mood changes, emotional outbursts are not considered final and
grave enough) executory,
6. Essential marital obligations are those embraced in Articles 68-71 of the shall be
Family code as regards to husband and wife and Articles 220, 221, and 225 considered
of same code with regards to parents and their children. Such non- legitimate.
complied obligation must be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and Children
included in the text of the decision conceived
7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the or born of
Catholic Church should be given great respect by the court the
subsequent
Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from paragraph 3 of marriage
Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law which provides: under
Article 53
“The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to shall
assume the essential obligations of marriage due to cases of psychological nature” likewise be
legitimate
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision should be Article 68
handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification. The
husband
and wife are
The court then stated that said guidelines were rigid practically condemning petitions obliged to
for declaration of nullity to face certain rejection. Therefore, stressed that every live
court should approach issue on nullity “not on a basis of priori assumptions, together,
predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts.” The court also observe
expressed that in order to arrive at an intelligent and judicious judgement, the mutual love,
conditions for incapacity of being grave and incurable demand diagnosis by experts. respect and
fidelity, and
II render
The findings of the RTC on existence of psychological incapacity should be final and mutual help
binding as long as findings and evaluation of testimonies of witnesses are not shown and support
to be erroneous. It is not enough reason for the appellate court to ignore findings of
trial court because the Constitution and the Family code regard marriage as an Article 69
inviolable social institution. The court stressed that the constitutional mandate to Article 70
protect marriage relates only to valid marriages. No protection can be accorded to Article 71
marriages that are void ab initio.
Article 220
The court also upheld with the conclusions of the two expert witnesses Dr. Gates and Article 221
Fr. Healy, acknowledging that Dr. Gates expert opinion even included opinion of Article 225
another expect who analyzed the issued from the side of the respondent. Moreover,
it is already settled that the court must accord weight to expert testimony on the
psychological and mental state of the parties in cases for the declaration of nullity of
marriage.

The court also stressed in Marcos v. Marcos that the person declared to be
psychologically incapacitated need not be personally examined because what is
important is that there is enough evidence to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity.

The court then compared Dr. Dayan’s expert findings with that of Dr. Gates. Dr.
Dayan impressed that respondent is relationship dependent. Dr. Dayan’s findings also
corroborated with Dr. Gates to the effect that respondent has Narcissistic Personality
Disorder stemming from her inexperience of affection from her mother which she
would argue as her reason for being negligent as a mother. Another interview with
her son showed that he did not see the sincerity of the maternal care of Malyn and
that he would prefer to live with his father.

Fr. Healy affirmed Malyn’s psychological incapacity by saying it manifested in her

lifestyle, her dysfunctional family led her to being a model and the breadwinner of
the family which inflated her ego. She prioritized her beauty and associating with
other friends over her marital obligations. Fr Healy’s opinions commanded respect.

in Republic v. Molina, Justice Romero explained that each case must be judged, not
on the basis of priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to
its own facts. The trial court must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the
appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgement for
that of the trial court.