The Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in the recent case of 

Tan-Andal v. Andal (GR 196359, May
11, 2021) that psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not a medical one, where the testimony
of a psychologist or psychiatrist as evidence is not mandatory in the declaration of nullity of
marriage cases.

The unanimous decision modified the interpretation of requirements of psychological incapacity,

which was penned by my UP Law Professor, Justice Marvic Leonen.

The Supreme Court noted that psychological incapacity refers to 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.

The totality of the evidence must show clear and convincing proof to cause the declaration of
nullity of marriage.

While ideally, the person to be diagnosed should be personally interviewed, it is accepted practice
in psychiatry to base a person’s psychiatric history on collateral information, or information from
sources aside from the person evaluated. This is usually done if the patient is not available,
incapable, or otherwise refuses to cooperate.

The Supreme Court added that it need not be a mental or personality disorder. It need not be a
permanent and incurable condition.

Article 36 of the Family Code holds that “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.