1. If performed in the Philippines – No, it is not allowed, hence the marriage is void.

Philippine laws prohibit marriages by proxy. Since the marriage is performed in the Philippines, Philippine
laws shall apply following the principle of lex loci celebrationis.
“If valid where celebrated, it is also valid here.” This is the doctrine of “lex loci celebrationis”, the law of the
place of celebration (Paras, 2016).
2. If performed abroad – Whether it is allowed or not depends upon the law of the place where the marriage
was celebrated (lex loci celebrationis).

As to marriages between v
Filipinos - all marriages (Republic of the Philippines v. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, September 21,
solemnized outside the 2005).
Philippines, in accordance Psychological incapacity does not refer to mental incapacity tantamount to
with the laws enforced in said insanity. (Paras, 2016) Clearly, the ground is restricted to psychological
country where they are incapacity to “comply with the essential marital obligations” (Sta. Maria,
solemnized, and valid there as 2010).
such, shall also be valid here In such case, the spouse declared to be psychologically incapacitated cannot
in the country, except those be held liable to pay moral damages to the other spouse based on Articles
prohibited under Art. 35 (1), 2217 and 21 of the NCC, which connotes (willfulness) of the acts
(2), (4), (5), (6), 36, 37 and 38 complained of, if the same acts constitutive of the psychological incapacity
(FC,Art. 26). were to be made the basis for the award of moral damages. It is
2. SOLEMNIZING contradictory to characterize acts as a product of psychological incapacity,
AUTHORITY and hence beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability,
while at the same time considering the same set of acts as willful (Rabuya,
2018).
Constitutional provision on marriage vis-à-vis validity of declarations of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity
Q: Does a petition or declaration of nullity of marriage based on Art. 36 of the FC destroy the
constitutional mandate to protect the sanctity of marriage and promoting such marriage as a
foundation of the family?
A: NO. In dissolving marital bonds, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually
protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder,
who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond.
Article 36, in classifying marriages contracted by a psychologically incapacitated person as a nullity, should
be deemed as an implement of this constitutional protection of marriage. Given the avowed State interest in
promoting marriage as the foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the foundation of the nation,
there is a corresponding interest for the State to defend against marriages ill-equipped to promote family life.
(Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015)
Determination of psychological incapacity is left solely with the courts on a case- to-case basis
Every court should approach the issue of nullity “not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
generalizations, but according to its own facts” in recognition of the verity that no case would be on “all fours”
with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every
“trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible,
avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.
By the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of
decision- making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on
the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties (Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 15,
2015).
Requisites of Psychological Incapacity (1996, 1997, 2002, 2006 Bar)
3. Juridical antecedence s– Must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although overt
manifestations may arise only after such marriage.
4. Gravity – grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential marital obligations.
5. Permanence or Incurability – must be incurable or, if curable, the cure should be beyond the means of the
parties involved.
Proof of Psychological Incapacity
The root cause of 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.

NOTE: Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
The physician’s examination is not required in establishing psychological incapacity as ground for
declaration of nullity
If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, physician’s
examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19,
2000; Glenn Viñas v. Mary Grace Parel-Viñas, G.R. No. 208790, January 21, 2015).
Guidelines set by the Court to aid it in its disposition of cases involving psychological incapacity
In the landmark case of Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina, the Supreme Court
enumerated the following guidelines in invoking and proving psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code:
1. Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff;
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
45
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. 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 Arts. 68 up to 71 of the FC as regards the
husband and wife, as well as Arts. 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children.
Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included
in the text of the decision;
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;
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel
for the state.

No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in
the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the
petition (Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997; Danilo
A. Aurelio v. Vide Ma. Corazon P. Aurelio, G.R. No. 175367, June 6, 2011).
NOTE: In Republic v. Quintero-Hamano, the SC held that these guidelines may not be relaxed just because the
spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign national. The norms used for
determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality because the rules
were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior in general (Rabuya, 2018)
In Marcos v. Marcos, the SC held categorically that psychological incapacity “may be established by the totality
of evidence presented” and that “there is no requirement that the respondent should be examined by a
physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such declaration” (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No.
136490, October 19, 2000).
Instances where allegations of psychological incapacity were not sustained
1. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities (Carating- Siayngco v.
Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004).

NOTE: Mere sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by
themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or
unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. (Castillo v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No.
214064, February 6, 2017)
It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which would make
respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of a marital state, not merely youth,
immaturity or sexual promiscuity (Dedel v. CA, G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004).
2. Disagreements regarding money matters (Tongol v. Tongol, G.R. No. 157610, October 19, 2007)
3. Mere abandonment. To constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and
abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse
from discharging the essential marital obligations (Republic of the Philippines v. Cesar Enselan, G.R. No.
170022, January 9, 2013).
4. Sexual infidelity (Republic v. Dagdag, G.R No. 109975, February 9, 2001)
5. Living an adulterous life when specific evidence was shown that promiscuity as a trait already existing at
the inception of marriage (Baccay v. Baccay, G.R. No. 173138, December 1, 2010)

Q: A and B were married. They have four (4) children. A, the husband, had an affair with C, who gave
birth to a child. After 12 years of marriage, B left the conjugal home and her 4 children with A. Now, A
started living with C. Nine years since the de facto separation from B, A filed a petition for declaration
of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. A psychologist and a canon law expert
testified that B, were indeed psychologically incapacitated alleging that she may reflect a narcissistic
personality disorder with her sexual infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent night-out
with friends. They based their diagnosis on an interview with the family relative of B and statements
made by their own son. Is the marriage of A and B void on the ground of psychological incapacity?
A: YES. The Court held that B was indeed psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the previously set
forth guidelines with regard to this case. Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too literally
read and applied given the intendment of the drafter to adopt its enacted version of “less specificity”
obviously to enable “some resiliency in its(Republic of the Philippines v. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, September 21,
2005).
Psychological incapacity does not refer to mental incapacity tantamount to insanity. (Paras, 2016) Clearly, the
ground is restricted to psychological incapacity to “comply with the essential marital obligations” (Sta. Maria,
2010).
In such case, the spouse declared to be psychologically incapacitated cannot be held liable to pay moral
damages to the other spouse based on Articles 2217 and 21 of the NCC, which connotes (willfulness) of the
acts complained of, if the same acts constitutive of the psychological incapacity were to be made the basis for
the award of moral damages. It is contradictory to characterize acts as a product of psychological incapacity,
and hence beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability, while at the same time considering
the same set of acts as willful (Rabuya, 2018).
Constitutional provision on marriage vis-à-vis validity of declarations of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity
Q: Does a petition or declaration of nullity of marriage based on Art. 36 of the FC destroy the
constitutional mandate to protect the sanctity of marriage and promoting such marriage as a
foundation of the family?
A: NO. In dissolving marital bonds, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually
protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder,
who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond.
Article 36, in classifying marriages contracted by a psychologically incapacitated person as a nullity, should
be deemed as an implement of this constitutional protection of marriage. Given the avowed State interest in
promoting marriage as the foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the foundation of the nation,
there is a corresponding interest for the State to defend against marriages ill-equipped to promote family life.
(Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015)
Determination of psychological incapacity is left solely with the courts on a case- to-case basis
Every court should approach the issue of nullity “not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
generalizations, but according to its own facts” in recognition of the verity that no case would be on “all fours”
with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every
“trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible,
avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.
By the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of
decision- making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on
the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties (Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 15,
2015).
Requisites of Psychological Incapacity (1996, 1997, 2002, 2006 Bar)
3. Juridical antecedence s– Must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although overt
manifestations may arise only after such marriage.
4. Gravity – grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential marital obligations.
5. Permanence or Incurability – must be incurable or, if curable, the cure should be beyond the means of the
parties involved.

Proof of Psychological Incapacity

The root cause of 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.

NOTE: Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
The physician’s examination is not required in establishing psychological incapacity as ground for
declaration of nullity
If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, physician’s
examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19,
2000; Glenn Viñas v. Mary Grace Parel-Viñas, G.R. No. 208790, January 21, 2015).
Guidelines set by the Court to aid it in its disposition of cases involving psychological incapacity
In the landmark case of Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina, the Supreme Court
enumerated the following guidelines in invoking and proving psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code:
1. Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff;
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
45
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. 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 Arts. 68 up to 71 of the FC as regards the
husband and wife, as well as Arts. 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children.
Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included
in the text of the decision;
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;
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel
for the state.

No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in
the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the
petition (Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997; Danilo
A. Aurelio v. Vide Ma. Corazon P. Aurelio, G.R. No. 175367, June 6, 2011).
NOTE: In Republic v. Quintero-Hamano, the SC held that these guidelines may not be relaxed just because the
spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign national. The norms used for
determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality because the rules
were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior in general (Rabuya, 2018)
In Marcos v. Marcos, the SC held categorically that psychological incapacity “may be established by the totality
of evidence presented” and that “there is no requirement that the respondent should be examined by a
physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such declaration” (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No.
136490, October 19, 2000).
Instances where allegations of psychological incapacity were not sustained
1. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities (Carating- Siayngco v.
Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004).

NOTE: Mere sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by
themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or
unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. (Castillo v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No.
214064, February 6, 2017)
It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which would make
respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of a marital state, not merely youth,
immaturity or sexual promiscuity (Dedel v. CA, G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004).
2. Disagreements regarding money matters (Tongol v. Tongol, G.R. No. 157610, October 19, 2007)
3. Mere abandonment. To constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and
abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse
from discharging the essential marital obligations (Republic of the Philippines v. Cesar Enselan, G.R. No.
170022, January 9, 2013).
4. Sexual infidelity (Republic v. Dagdag, G.R No. 109975, February 9, 2001)
5. Living an adulterous life when specific evidence was shown that promiscuity as a trait already existing at
the inception of marriage (Baccay v. Baccay, G.R. No. 173138, December 1, 2010)

Q: A and B were married. They have four (4) children. A, the husband, had an affair with C, who gave
birth to a child. After 12 years of marriage, B left the conjugal home and her 4 children with A. Now, A
started living with C. Nine years since the de facto separation from B, A filed a petition for declaration
of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. A psychologist and a canon law expert
testified that B, were indeed psychologically incapacitated alleging that she may reflect a narcissistic
personality disorder with her sexual infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent night-out
with friends. They based their diagnosis on an interview with the family relative of B and statements
made by their own son. Is the marriage of A and B void on the ground of psychological incapacity?
A: YES. The Court held that B was indeed psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the previously set
forth guidelines with regard to this case. Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too literally read
and applied given the intendment of the drafter to adopt its enacted version of “less specificity” obviously to
enable “some resiliency in its