STUDY GUIDE 1.
VOSOTROS, JOYCE AMARA B.
LAW IV-B
1. Article 36 of the Family Code was taken by the Family Code Revision
Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law.
2.
a. The Family Code Revision Committee in ultimately deciding to
adopt the provision with less specificity than expected, has, in
fact so designed the law as to allow resiliency in its application.
The Committee did not give any example of psychological
incapacity for fear that giving of example would limit the
applicability of the provision under ejusdem generis.
b. Justice Puno and Judge Diy, however, pointed out that it is
possible that after the marriage, one’s psychological incapacity
become manifest but later on he is cured. Justice Reyes and
Justice Caguioa opined that the remedy in this case is to allow
him to remarry.
c. “Canon 1095. There are incapable of contracting marriage;
i. Who lack sufficient use of reason;
ii. Who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of
judgement concerning essential matrimonial rights and
duties, to be given and accepted mutually;
iii. Who for causes of psychological nature are unable to
assume the essential obligation of marriage
d. In the case of Chi Ming Tsoy vs. CA it was ruled that the
senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill
the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological
incapacity.
e. The guidelines set in Santos vs. CA do not require that a
physician examine the person to be declared psychologically
incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be "medically or
clinically identified." What is important is the presence of
evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological
condition. For indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is
enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then
actual medical examination of the person concerned need not
be resorted to.
STUDY GUIDE 1.
VOSOTROS, JOYCE AMARA B.
LAW IV-B
3. Republic vs. Molina established the guidelines presently recognized
in the judicial disposition of petitions for nullity under Article 36. The
Court has consistently applied Molina since its promulgation in 1997,
and the guidelines therein operate as the general rules. They warrant
citation in full:
1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage
belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in
favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity.
2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
(a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint
(c) sufficiently proven by experts and
(d) clearly explained in the decision.
3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of
the celebration" of the marriage.
4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
clinically permanent or incurable.
5) 5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage.
6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by
Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and their children.
7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our
courts
4. Psychological incapacity was further explained in the case of Singson
vs. Singson (GR 210766, Jan. 8, 2018), where the Supreme Court
through Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo stated:
“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
STUDY GUIDE 1.
VOSOTROS, JOYCE AMARA B.
LAW IV-B
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.
5. In more recent cases, such as Rolando D. Cortez v. Luz G. Cortez
(G.R. No. 224638, April 10, 2019), the Supreme Court denied the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity and held that the petitioner failed to show
that he and respondent were both psychologically incapable of
knowing and performing their marital and parental obligations.
Petitioner's showing of ill-will and refusal to perform marital
obligations do not amount to psychological incapacity on his part.
Petitioner's claim of lack of realization that he has marital
6. In the case of Republic of the Philippines vs Ariel S. Calingco and
Cynthia Marcellana-Calingco (G.R. No. 212717, March 11, 2020) the
Supreme Court ruled that unequivocally, psychological incapacity
must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the
performance of the marital obligations; it is not enough that a party
prove that the other failed to meet the responsibility aμd duty of a
married person. Hence, contrary to CA's decision, the fact that
Cynthia is "mabunganga" anq had extra-marital affairs are not
sufficient indicators of a psychological disorder.
7. The Court in the case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, (G.R. No. 196359, May
11, 2021) unanimously modified the interpretation of the
requirements of psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration
of nullity of marriage found in Article 36 of the Family Code. The new
Leonen ruling said that "psychological incapacity is not a medical but
a legal concept." Moreover, the ruling said: "It need not be a mental
or personality disorder. It need not be a permanent and incurable
condition. Therefore, the testimony of psychologist or psychiatrist is
not mandatory in all cases. The totality of the evidence must show
STUDY GUIDE 1.
VOSOTROS, JOYCE AMARA B.
LAW IV-B
clear and convincing evidence to cause the declaration of nullity of
marriage." The new ruling defines psychological incapacity as "a
personal condition that prevents a spouse to comply with
fundamental marital obligations only in relation to a specific partner
that may exist at the time of the marriage but may have revealed
through behavior subsequent to the ceremonies."
