PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

As aptly ruled by the Honorable Court, the alleged lack of realization that respondent has marital obligation to perform
as wife to petitioner is not a consideration under Article 36 of the Family Code as what the law requires is a mental
illness that leads to an inability to comply with or comprehend essential marital obligations. Tani-Dela Fuente v. De la
Fuente, 807 Phil. 32 (2017)

BURDEN OF PROOF

The Supreme Court, in the case of Cortez vs Cortez, April 10, 2019, G.R. No. 224638, had the occasion to emphasize that
“the burden of proving psychological incapacity falls upon petitioner. He must prove that he or respondent suffer from a
psychological disorder which renders them incapable of taking cognizance of the basic marital obligations, which he
failed to do. “

It is the humble position of the respondent that petitioner failed to meet the required quantum of proof as there is no
sufficient evidence to prove that respondent is psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code.

It should be noted that petitioner utterly failed to show how respondent’s alleged personality traits incapacitated her
from complying with the essential obligations of marriage. It is respectfully submitted that the alleged laziness and
refusal to continue her studies are distinct and separate from the marital obligations provided for under the law. Here,
petitioner failed to show by preponderance of evidence how respondent’s alleged refusal and neglect to assume her
marital obligations stemmed from a psychological condition or illness which rendered her incapable to give meaning to
the marriage.

“Mere "difficulty," "refusal," or "neglect" in the performance of marital obligations or "ill will" on the part of the spouse is
different from "incapacity" rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness.” (Navales vs. Navales, G.R.
NO. 167523, June 27, 2008)

As aptly ruled by the Honorable Court, “It is downright  incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty, much less ill will,
which renders a marriage void on the ground of  psychological  incapacity”.

In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner repleads again the following allegations, to wit:

It is the humble position of the respondent that the own psychological evaluation made by the petitioner, assuming that
they were true, can only be considered as incompatibility and irreconcilable differences, which cannot be equated with
psychological incapacity. (Dan vs. Dan, April 16, 2018, G.R. No. 209031)

Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that petitioner’s own evaluation of respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity
is biased as it is only based on his own narrations and interpretation of the alleged shortcomings of the respondent.
Also, the account and observations of petitioner's mother and acquaintance is biased and thus of doubtful credibility.

More importantly, petitioner merely alleged such conditions which he perceives as indicative of psychological incapacity
on the part of the respondent. Nevertheless, he was unable to establish its existence, gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability based solely on his testimony. To reiterate, it is humbly submitted that such testimony is insufficient, self-
serving and unreliable.

Petitioner failed to show that respondent's psychological incapacity exists at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
and that the same is medically permanent, incurable, and grave enough as to bring about the inability of respondent to
assume her obligations in marriage; and that as a consequence, respondent is incapable of fulfilling her duties as a wife
under the obligation to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support to
him. (Castillo vs. Republic, February 6, 2017, G.R. No. 214064)

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Ricardo B. Toring v. Teresita M. Toring, G.R. No. 165321, August 3, 2010,  that
“irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like do not
by themselves warrant a finding of  psychological  incapacity, as these may only be due to a person's difficulty, refusal or
neglect to undertake the obligations of marriage  that is not rooted in some  psychological  illness  that Article 36 of the
Family Code addresses”.
 In  Republic of the Philippines v. Norma Cuison-Melgar, et al., [33] we  ruled  that it  is  not  enough  to prove  that  a 
spouse  failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person;  it  is essential that he or she must be shown to
be incapable of doing so because of some psychological, not physical, illness. In other words, proof of a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person - an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively
incapacitates  the  person from  really  accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage  - had
to be shown. [34] A cause has to be shown and linked with the manifestations of the psychological incapacity.

From this premise, she jumped to the conclusion that Juvy appeared to be incurable  or incorrigible, and would be very
hard to cure. These unfounded conclusions  cannot  be  equated with gravity or incurability that Article 36 of the Family
Code requires. To be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to change is
another. To hark back to what we earlier discussed, psychological incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995

hese allegations, even if true, all occurred during the marriage. The testimony was totally devoid of any information or
insight into Juvy's early life and associations, how she acted before and at the time of the marriage, and how the
symptoms of a disordered personality developed. Simply put, the psychologist failed to trace the history of
Juvy's psychological condition and to relate it to an existing incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions
for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies with the plaintiff. Paz
v. Paz, G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010 [41] Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals a situation where the
parties, or one of them, could not have validly entered into a marriage by reason of a grave and
serious psychological illness existing at the time it was celebrated, we are compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the
marital tie. Agraviador v. Amparo Agraviador, G.R. No. 170729, December 8, 2010 [42]

iezl's purported actuations were not proven to have existed prior to the marriage; nor was it alleged in respondent's
petition that she showed abnormal and peculiar character and behavior prior to the celebration of the marriage that
would support a conclusion that she is suffering from any psychological incapacity. Petitioner argues that the CA
observed nothing peculiar about the spouses that would insinuate that they are suffering from  psychological incapacity,
and that the finding that Liezl was suffering from a psychological disorder was merely based on incidents that occurred
after the celebration of the marriage. Petitioner, thus, avers that Liezl's incapacity is merely conjectural since there was
no mention or proof that her incapacity manifested, or at least was hinted at, before the celebration of the marriage.

Verily, the totality of the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that
manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. If other evidence showing that a certain
condition could possibly result from an assumed state of facts existed in the record, the expert opinion should be
admissible and be weighed as an aid for the court in interpreting such other evidence on the causation. Indeed, an
expert opinion on psychological incapacity should be considered as conjectural or speculative and without any probative
value only in the absence of other evidence to establish causation. The expert's findings under such circumstances
would not constitute hearsay that would justify their exclusion as evidence. This is so, considering that any ruling that
brands the scientific and technical procedure adopted by Dr. Gates as weakened by bias should be eschewed if it was
clear that her psychiatric evaluation had been based on the parties' upbringing and psychodynamics

 His evidence fell short of establishing his assertion that at the time of their marriage, Luz was suffering from
a psychological defect which deprived her of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant
responsibilities.

First, the testimony of Robert failed to overcome the burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage.  Other than his
self-serving testimony, no other evidence was adduced to show the alleged incapacity of Luz. He presented no other
witnesses to corroborate his allegations on her behavior. Thus, his testimony was self-serving and hadno serious value
as evidence.

Second, the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity of Luz was not medically or clinically identified, and
sufficiently proven during the trial. Based on the records, Robert failed to prove that her disposition of not cleaning the
room, preparing their meal, washing the clothes, and propensity for dating and receiving different male visitors, was
grave, deeply rooted, and incurable within the parameters of jurisprudence on psychological incapacity.

The alleged failure of Luz to assume her duties as a wife and as a mother, as well as her emotional immaturity,
irresponsibility and infidelity,cannot rise to the level of psychological incapacity that justifies the nullification of the
parties' marriage. The Court has repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates
"downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations," not merely the
refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. [11]Indeed, to be declared clinically or
medically incurable is one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to perform one's duties is
another. Psychological incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.