A Brief Interdisciplinary Synthesis on Court’s Definition of Psychological Incapacity as Ground

of Nullity of Marriage with Psychological Component

By Steffi Kate B. Buffe

JD1A

Introduction

Marriage has been described in the Family Code, as:

Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a

woman entered into in accordance with law for establishment of conjugal and
family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution
whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject
to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations
during marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (52a) 1

This definition further strengthened the importance of family and marriage in Article II,
Section 12 of the Constitution, which states that “[t]he State recognizes the sanctity of family life
and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous institution”.2 By the
declaration and stipulation of both the Constitution and the Family Code, the State protects the
sanctity of marriage.

Statistics showed that in 2017, a total of 434,932 of marriages has been recorded, which
was an increase of 3.6% from 2016’s total record of marriages of 419,628.3 Although a good
number of marriages has been on record, other data provides also an increase number of
petitions for nullity of marriage has been filed. In 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General
reported that based on their random sampling of cases filed in 2012, 47% of the petitions filed
fall under nullity of marriage, and most female spouses are the petitioners. 4 We can assume that
in the numbers alone, one of the grounds to nullify the marriage is due to psychological
incapacity, and although the presumption is always in favor in the validity of marriage-- semper
praesumitur pro matrimonio—however, our laws also consider the remedies that are applicable

1
Family Code of the Philippines [Executive Order No. 209, as amended], published in Civil Code of the Philippines,
2018
2

Cruz, I. A., & Cruz, C. L. (2014). Philippine Political Law. Quezon City: Central Book Supply Inc.
3
Marriage in the Philippines, 2017. (2018, September 26). Retrieved October 4, 2019, from Philippine Statistics
Authority: https://psa.gov.ph/content/marriage-philippines-2017
4
Santos, A. P. (2016, January 1). IN NUMBERS: The state of the nation's marital woes. Retrieved October 4, 2019,
from Rappler: https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/117260-in-numbers-marital-woes-annulment-philippines
to the aggrieved party as to the ground of nullifying his or her marriage due to psychological
incapacity.

Cases

The following landmark cases described the grounds and basic tenets as how the Court
rendered its decision on the nullity of marriage due to the ground of psychological incapacity:

Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi

Private Respondent was married to Petitioner for ten (10) months prior when the former
filed a petition to nullify her marriage with the Petitioner due to his avoidance in engaging into
having sex with her. Private Respondent contended that the nullity of marriage is based on the
ground of “psychological incapacity” of the Petitioner. The Court ruled that the parties was
unable to fulfill their marital obligations to another, and their absence of empathy towards one
another has been the manifestation of the failed marriage, and without “a shared feeling which
between husband and wife must be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy
but a deep sense of spiritual communion”, which is why the petition was denied, and the
judgement of the lower court was affirmed.

Santos v. Court of Appeals

Petitioner, a military man, met and wedded the Private Respondent in Iloilo on September
20, 1986, solemnized by Judge Lazaro of the MTC. On the onset of the marital relationship, the
parties had a child and was living in the Private Respondent’s compound. Quarrels arose such as
the interference of the Private Respondent’s parents in their marital affairs, and the defiance of
the latter when the Petitioner visits his parents. In 1988, the Private Respondent went to the US
for employment, and the couple barely had communication. The Petitioner had the opportunity
to go to the US for a training program under the AFP, and during his stay, had attempted to locate
the whereabouts of the Private Respondent to no avail. The Petitioner filed a petition for nullity
of marriage due “psychological incapacity”, in which that Private Respondent’s lack of love for
him and her failure to “inform her husband about her whereabouts for a period of five years,
more or less, is psychologically incapacitated”, had made him assert this argument. The Court
ruled that, although, the Petitioner is an aggrieved party in the case, the factual evidences had
not qualified for his marriage to be declared void, therefore, rendered that the petition be
denied.

Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina

Private Respondent was married to Reynaldo Molina, whom, she referred to, as immature
and irresponsible, due to neglect of his obligations to his family, and eventually abandoned them.
Private Respondent filed a petition in court, to have their marriage declared void ab initio due to
incompatibility and her estranged husband contended that Private Respondent was also unable
to fulfill her marital obligations such as running the household, preparing meals, and keeping
track of the finances. Accounts of those who knew the parties attested to the situation of the
parties and an expert witness, Dr. Hidalgo-Sison has given an account in which she stated that
Reynaldo Molino did not provide any evidence has he appeared only on pre-trial conference. The
RTC rendered judgement, affirming the nullity of marriage, but was denied by the CA through the
appeal filed. Now, Petitioner filed for certiorari, to challenge the rendered decisions by the CA
and the trial court, affirming that the marriage of the parties be declared void ab initio. The Court
ruled that such claims are merely physical in nature, and does not prove that the husband is
“psychologically incapacitated” to perform and maintain such marital and familial obligations,
and such incapacity is proven to be incurable in nature since it is internal in the person. Thus, The
Court granted the petition, and in its decision stating the marriage still valid.

Marcos v. Marcos

Petitioner was married to Respondent twice, on September 1982 and May 1983,
respectively. Out of the marriage, five (5) children were born. The Respondent joined the military
forces (AFP), and was later transferred in PSG during the Marcos Regime. On the other hand, the
Petitioner joined the Air Force. After the downfall of the Marcos regime, both were discharged
from the military service. On the onset of their discharge in the military service, the Respondent
sought business ventures that did not prosper. Since he was not able to find a stable job, the
parties tend to quarrel, and the Respondent has become violent and abusive. With this, the
parties have lived separately. The Petitioner filed a petition to have her marriage nullified due to
psychological incapacity. Petitioner submitted herself to psychological assessment, interviews
have been conducted on the children to describe their relationship and the actions of their father
to them. With all the evidences presented, the trial court rendered a decision in nullifying the
marriage due to psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision since
it was found out that the respondent has not been subjected to psychological or psychiatric
evaluation that will prove his incapacity at the celebration of the marriage, which was the action
that caused the filing of this petition to the high court. The Court ruled that although there were
evidences provided by the Petitioner, the burden of proof of claiming that the Respondent was
suffering psychological incapacity was not presented before the courts. Also, the Court have not
found the basic requirements as mentioned in Santos v. Court of Appeals,5 on the characteristics
of psychological incapacity: (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The Court
reasoned that the actions of the Respondent was due to the external factors of losing his job and
was unable to provide support for the family, and not clear indications of being psychologically
incapacitated. Hence, the Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision.

5
Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995
Psychological Incapacity Defined

No exact definition has been provided by the laws as to what “psychological incapacity”
is, but in the case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, supra, that the “psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability”,6 and that the
incapacity must be so grave that it limits the performance of the marital obligations. The
determination of the incapacity is internal within the person, manifested through overt acts
performed before or during the marriage, and that the incapacity is incurable beyond the means
of the party involved.

In the Article 36 of The Family Code, it states that:

Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration,
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations
of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.7

By the provision alone in The Family Code, if the person who contracted into marriage
was not able to comply with the essential marital obligations incorporated in the said marriage,
the person projects psychological incapacity, and therefore, will make the marriage void.

Citing the published work of Arias, Jr., Gesmundo (2014) and Carcereny and Soliman
(2010) described psychological incapacity as “the type of incapacity that is not physical, but
mental in nature, such that either or both spouses would be truly incognizant to assume and
discharge their essential marital obligations”.8 Arias mentioned and cited that the marital
obligations being performed are not limited to performance of sexual union, but also to live
together as husband and wife, observe and give love, respect and fidelity, and to provide support
to each other.9 In Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi, the Court found that
absence of empathy of the parties to each other has been evident and that they do not possess
“a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only by having
spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion”. 10

6
Santos v. Court of Appeals, supra.
7
Family Code of the Philippines [Executive Order No. 209, as amended], supra.
8
Arias, Jr., A. V. (Winter 2016). A Thematic Look at Selected Cases of Marital Nullity in the Philippines. IAFOR
Journal of Psychology & The Behavioral Sciences, 2(3). Retrieved October 1, 2019, from
https://iafor.org/archives/journals/iafor-journal-of-psychology-and-the-behavioral-
sciences/10.22492.ijpbs.2.3.05.pdf
9
Id.
10
Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi, G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997
 Although these are the foregoing, the Court’s interpretation of psychological incapacity
varies by case, but firm on the doctrines already established.11 Arias explained that the Court’s
attitude towards the interpretation of psychological incapacity is mainly because of the
complexity of the categorical framework of personality functioning, which is dependent on the
interpretation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV-Text Revised. 12

Citing Malibiran (2007), Arias said in his paper that the cruxes of spouses’ psychological
incapacity were traceable to their disordered personalities.13 The Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders V defined personality disorder as “an enduring pattern of inner
experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture,
is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time,
and leads to distress or impairment”.14 It is well noted and emphasized in the Article 36 of The
Family Code that the psychological incapacity is present during the solemnization of marriage.
This posits that the determinants if the person is psychologically incapable in contracting into
marriage by his or her risk factors, which are not limited to genetics and environmental factors.

For Further Discourse

The Court held, on all cases that to be able to declare the marriage as void, citing the basic
tenets of psychological incapacity as mentioned in Santos v. Court of Appeals, supra, are: (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. Although implied in the general
characteristics stated, it is imperative to both parties that upon entering into marriage, they shall
uphold the very ideals and the sanctity of marriage itself since it is an inviolable social institution.
As members of the society, this vital part of our society must be protected, not only by the State,
but every member of the society as well. Although it cannot be helped that such marriages are
deemed unsuccessful and incompatibility is unavoidable, we should be able to discern also what
really defines a successful, if not, lasting marriage. Our values should remain the foundations and
love and empathy towards the other shall strengthen the foundations for it to withstand the tests
of marital life.

From this synthesis, further discourse and research shall be done when it comes to
utilization of standardized psychological assessment tools in the aid of Forensic Mental Health
Assessment to be able to guide our courts in determining and examining the grounds to which
the person qualifies (or not) as psychologically incapable in performing and observing his or her
obligations upon entering into marital union. Consent is always an important key before
completion of any assessment and guidelines should be set as to how the courts will render their

11
Arias, Jr. supra.
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Personality Disorders. (2013). In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) (Fifth ed.).
Arlington,, VA, USA: American Psychiatric Association.
judgement based on the assessment results, and if such guidelines are violated, implications or
consequences must be well defined, since cases vary from its uniqueness from the others
preceding it, without straying away from the doctrines that the law upholds.
References
Arias, Jr., A. V. (Winter 2016). A Thematic Look at Selected Cases of Marital Nullity in the Philippines.
IAFOR Journal of Psychology & The Behavioral Sciences, 2(3). Retrieved October 1, 2019, from
https://iafor.org/archives/journals/iafor-journal-of-psychology-and-the-behavioral-
sciences/10.22492.ijpbs.2.3.05.pdf

Cruz, I. A., & Cruz, C. L. (2014). Philippine Political Law. Quezon City: Central Book Supply Inc.

Marriage in the Philippines, 2017. (2018, September 26). Retrieved October 4, 2019, from Philippine
Statistics Authority: https://psa.gov.ph/content/marriage-philippines-2017

Personality Disorders. (2013). In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) (Fifth
ed.). Arlington,, VA, USA: American Psychiatric Association.

Santos, A. P. (2016, January 1). IN NUMBERS: The state of the nation's marital woes. Retrieved October
4, 2019, from Rappler: https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/117260-in-numbers-marital-
woes-annulment-philippines