REQUIREMENT FOR PERSONS AND

FAMILY RELATIONS BRIDGING

SUBJECT

Submitted to:
Atty. Mae Elaine Bathan

Submitted by:

Ezra Hilary Ceniza

Date:
May 9, 2023
A Comparative Analysis of the Changes in the Definition of
Psychological Incapacity in the Philippines Concerning Persons and
Family Relations Law

I. INTRODUCTION
Today, The Philippines is the only state left that does not allow divorce or
does not have any divorce law. This is mainly rooted and influenced by the
Roman Catholic Church which advocates the sanctity of marriage. Hence,
the rigidity and strict implementation of marriage laws. 1

Despite such adherence to the Catholic church’s culture, our Civil Laws still
provide for grounds where marriage can be declared as void ab initio. And
psychological incapacity is one of those grounds which is explicitly stated in
Art. 36 of the Family Code2

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.

II. Court Decisions and Jurisprudence

One of the earliest landmark cases in terms of psychological incapacity as

a ground for annulment of marriage is Santos vs CA3 where the Supreme
Court referred back to the deliberations of the Family Code Revisions
Committee and its intent in framing what constitutes psychological
incapacity. It was found that to prove the latter, the elements of gravity,
judicial antecedents, and incurability must be evident in the circumstances
of the case and the plaintiff must have the burden of proof to prove that
incapacity.

Later on, in the case of Republic v CA4, the Supreme Court established a
strict set of rules to determine Psychological Incapacity. It was defined
herein that it is something that is clinically or medically permanent and must
be alleged in the complaint and that the incapacity is grave enough to prove
the spouse cannot assume his martial duties and that the incapacity is
already existing at the time the marriage is celebrated.
 It was in this case that the court followed the following guidelines in
interpreting Art. 36 of the Family Code:1
1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the
plaintiff;
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) Incapacity must be shown to be clinically or medically 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

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 Family Code;

7) The interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial

Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling, shall be given great respect by the courts.2

Although, admittedly ever since the establishment of these guidelines, there

were only a few cases that met the requirements of the Molina guidelines to
prove that the marriage should be declared null and void.

It was only recently that the Supreme Court’s decision of Kalaw v

Fernandez4 that the court relaxed the Application of the Molina ruling citing
that Art. 36 should not be interpreted strictly and the court decisions

1
Acaylar, et al. Redefining Psychological Incapacity: A Review of landmark cases
2 Art.36. Civil Code of the Philippines
3 Santos v CA. Gr. 112019.January 4, 1995
2
Republic vs CA. Gr. 108763. February 13, 1997
3 Kalaw vs CA. Gr. 166357. January 14, 2015
5 Chi Ming Tsoi v CA. Gr. 119190. January. 16, 1997
 involving psychological incapacity must be on a case-to-case basis. A
classic example of such application is the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v CA5 where
the judges ruled that if one of the spouses refuses to fulfill the marital
obligations to procreate, then it is tantamount to psychological incapacity as
it is one of the reasons why a man and a woman get married.

III. Recent Jurisprudence on Psychological Incapacity

In the recent case of Tan-Andal v Andal8, there were several modifications

in the court's take on psychological incapacity. In the said case,
psychological incapacity does not have to be strictly or clinically permanent
or incurable anymore. It does not even have to be proven by a medical
expert, instead, psychological incapacity refers to a personal condition that
prevents a spouse to comply with fundamental marital obligations which may
have existed at the time of the celebration of marriage but only manifested
after the wedding ceremony.

In this case, the current decision has overturned the previous rulings on
psychological incapacity in the case of Republic vs CA and Santos vs CA,
because the requisite of a medical expert to prove psychological incapacity
is not necessary anymore as it has ceased to be a medical concept and
became a legal concept.9The Courts will not require anymore that medical
professionals, such as psychiatrists and psychologists, will appear in Court
as expert witnesses. The testimonies of ordinary witnesses will already
suffice. The high court emphasized that there should be clear acts of
dysfunctionality present along with the absence of understanding of one's
essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is then unnecessary
to be medically identified. An expert opinion is not an indispensable
requirement at present.10

It is evident that the case on psychological incapacity as a ground for

annulment is no longer novel and it has evolved its interpretation of the law
under the time and needs of the people. It has also relaxed its requisites
making it easier to prove not just by medical experts but also by witness
opinions.
3

3
Tan-Andal vs Andal. Gr.196359. May 11, 2021
9 Acaylar, et al. Redefining Psychological Incapacity: A Review of landmark cases
10 Ibid.
PART 2: CHANGES IN ADOPTION LAWS

Republic Act No. 11642, also known as the Domestic Administrative Adoption and
Alternative Child Care Act, was signed by Duterte on Jan. 6, 2022. This law
recognizes "the policy of the State to ensure that every child remains under the
care and custody of parents and be provided with love, care, understanding, and
security towards the full and harmonious development of the child's personality.”4

The law also mandates the creation of a Regional Alternative Child Care Office
(RACCO) for each region of the country which will be tasked to ensure a well-
functioning system of receipt of local 4petitions for CDCLAA and adoption, and
other requests regarding alternative placement and well-being of children.5

The process of the new adoption law shall be as follows:

1. First, there must be a petition for the issuance of a Certificate Declaring
Child Legally Available for Adoption which shall be filed with the Regional
Alternative Child Care Office (RACCO) where the child was found.
2. The RACCO shall then immediately proceed to examine the petition and
shall then authorize the posting of the notice of the petition in conspicuous
places for five (5) consecutive days.
3. After fifteen (15) days after the completion of the posting, the RACCO
shall then issue a recommendation to the Executive Director.
4. In turn, the Executive Director shall issue a Certification Declaring a Child
Legally Available for Adoption (CDCLAA) within 7 working days. However,
the period shall not be applicable where there is a need for further
investigation.
5. After the receipt of the decision of the NACC, the decision may be
appealed to the Court of Appeals within ten (10) days. After the lapse of the
period, the decision shall be final and executory.
6. Petitions are then received by RACCO which has been mandated to
review the Petition for Adoption within fifteen days from the filing.
7. After which, reviews shall be made and once the petition is found to be
substantially compliant, it shall be directed for final approval.
8. The adopter shall then file a Certified Copy of the Order of Adoption within
the Civil Registrar where the prospective parents reside. After, an order
granting or denying the adoption shall become final within ten (10) days from

4
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11642, January 06, 2022
5 Ibid.
the receipt thereof. The new adoption law adopted in the Philippines has
removed the judicial process for child adoption. However, hearings and
assessments on the capabilities of the prospective adoptive parents remain,
but without the judicial process.