MEMORANDUM

TO: AAAA

FROM: ATTY. CCC

DATE: October 29, 2020

RE: AAAA PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

WITH BBBB ON THE GROUNDS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

______________________________________________________

FACTS

From the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by herein

petitioner, it appears that the petitioner and BBBB met on a bar on June

2008. Later on, they became friends and BBBB proposed to the petitioner

sometime on 2009. They got married on 2010 and had three children.

During their the first few years of their marriage, they lived in BBBB’s

parents house in Taguig. AAAA noticed the excessive dependency of BBBB to

his mother to the point that he refused to move out of their house when the

petitioner suggested it. BBBB failed to give financial support for his family

leaving all the obligation to AAAA. The petitioner also recounted that her

spouse is possessive and controlling that he ordered her to leave her job

accusing her of having infidelity. BBBB also exerted physical violence against

1
the petitioner in different occasions as witnessed by her friends during a

party when BBBB was drunk.

Petitioner likewise testified on the different situations when she and

respondent were still living together, such as:

1. BBBB was a manipulative, controlling man and in the extreme would

even resort to emotional blackmail, even threatening to kill or hurt

himself, to get what he wants;

2. BBBB failed to be considerate and respect petitioner’s preferences as

his wife so much so that he resorted to marital rape, whenever he

wants sex at times and at all costs;

3. BBBB was a self-centered man, irrationally the jealous, domineering

type so that even when he was not in the country, petitioner still felt

she was his prisoner;

4. BBBB did not honor and comply with the basic marital obligations of

mutual love, respect and support as enumerated in Art. 68 of the

Family Code.

ISSUE(S) PRESENTED

Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in the case of BBBB in

accordance to AAAA’s testimonies.

2
 BRIEF ANSWER

Yes, following the ruling of Republic vs. Gratia, the court explained that

psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of

the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental – not merely 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 which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family

Code, among others, include their mutual obligations to live together,

observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is

hardly any doubt that 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.i

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, any 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 in such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. ii

If the psychological incapacity is proven to exist during the contraction of

marriage, it can be grounds for nullity of marriage. In the testimony of

AAAA, BBBB’s psychological incapacity manifests in different ways which

3
began during their married life which affected their relationship in the long

run.

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be

characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

"The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be

incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be

rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the

overt manifestations may emerge only after marriage; and it must be

incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means

of the party involved.iii The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on

the petitioner, AAAA.

In this regard, the petitioner adds that her allegations in the petition for

declaration of nullity are specifically linked to medical and clinical causes as

diagnosed by Dr. Co, which diagnosis is contained in the latter's report which

forms part of the evidence in the case. His diagnosis is backed by scientific

tests and expert determination, which sufficiently prove respondent's

psychological incapacity; that Dr. Co has adequately diagnosed that

respondent's condition is grave, incurable, and existed prior to and at the

time of his marriage to petitioner; that despite considerable efforts exerted

by petitioner, BBBB remained true to his propensities and even defiant, to

the point of exhibiting violence; that no amount of therapy - no matter how

4
intensive can possibly change respondent, but rather he would always be in

denial of his own condition and resist any form of treatment; and that

respondent's condition is deep-rooted and stems from his formative years -

a product of faulty child-rearing practices and unhealthy familial

constellation that altered his emotional and moral development.

Petitioner and respondent could never live together harmoniously

considering the psychological incapacity of the respondent. Their marriage is

already beyond repair, as possible reconciliation and respect fidelity

authentic cohabitation as husband and wife, mutual help support, and

commitment did not and will no longer exist between them.

With due consideration of the above-mentioned findings, the

psychologist recommended that the marriage that ties between petitioner

and respondent, be declared null and void.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

marriage between the petitioner and respondent be declared void from the

beginning under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Atty. CCCC
Counsel for the Petitioner
Araneta City Manhattan Gardens
No. 666 Cubao, Quezon City

5
 PTR No. 123456 October 29, 2020 Rizal
IBP No. 987654 October 29, 2020 Rizal
Roll No. 07212
MCLE Compliance V No. -0001086 November
5, 2013
Tel. Nos. 416-3901; 09209053089

6
i
Republic v. De Gratia, 726 Phil. 502, 509 (2014).
ii
Family Code, Article 36
iii
Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 39 (1995).