Psychological Incapacity

Maam Beths Lecture

Personality disorders- formed by early adulthood, persists through life (in court, this should be proved)

Art. 36, Family Code
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.

Manifest only after solemnization opened to abuse

Background:
The Family Code adopted the Canon Law concept of void marriage
Three reasons:
1. substitute for divorce
2. solution to the problem of church-annulled marriages
3. additional remedy to problematic marriages that do not fall under Family Code provisions on
void and voidable marriages

Psychological incapacity is undefined and not exclusively enumerated court to decide on a case-to-case
basis
Ejusdem jeneris (of the same kind)-
Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them
in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically list
ed


Insanity Psychological incapacity
- vice of consent
- merely a ground for annulment
- may be ratified (may be confirmed) by
insane spouse upon coming to reason
- not consent but inability to comply with
essential obligations of marriage
- renders marriage void
- incurable thus cannot be ratified (cannot
be confirmed)

Persons who have psych incapacity and whose first marriages were declared void may remarry . According
to court, personality may be suitable/ compatible with other persons

Personality disorders in 3 clusters
1. odd-centric- paranoia, schizoid (lack of desire to form interpersonal relationships, show little
emotion, relationship as unrewarding), schizotypal (i.e., zorro of UP Diliman)
2. dramatic emotional- engage in impulsive dramatic behavior, suicidal,
a. anti-social deceitful, repeated lying, poor control of impulses, impairment in ability to
b. histrionic personality disorder- self-dramatization (Maam Beths example is Kris Aquino)
c. Narcissistic personality disorder- also Kris Aquino, self- evaluation, self-importance, view self
as superior, unreasonable demands from others
3. anxious fearful
a. avoidant PD- persistent feelings of tension and apprehension, socially inept, fear of
disapproval and rejection
b. dependent PD- subordination of own needs to other on whom is dependent, and
compliance with their wishes, feels helpless when alone; submit to most unreasonable
demands; clingy; (difficult to asertain in women who are compelled to follow cultural
expectation of subservience to family/father/husband)
c. Obsessive-Compulsive PD - extreme self control, attention to detail , rigid, perfectionist,
dogmatic, ruminative, and emotionally blocked, dismissive and demeaning
4. Diagnostic Process

Republic v. Dagdag
1. Erlinda, 16 married Avelino Parangan Dagdag
2. They had two children
3. A week after the wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation. He disappeared
for months. He had drinking sprees. He would force his wife to submit to sexual intercourse
4. October 1993. He left and that was the last they heard of him. Erlinda learned that Avelino was
imprisoned for some crime. He escaped from jail and remains at large
5. July 1990, Erlinda filed for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on ground of psych incapacity
6. According to OSG: failed to prove psych incapacity
HELD:
Each case must be tried according to its own facts.
Failed to comply with requirement that root cause of psych incapacity must be medically
identified (Molina case)
Favor validity of marriage (policy of the 1987 Constitution)

Santos v. Bedia-Santos
Facts:
1. Leouel Santos wed Julia Rosario Bedia in civil ceremony later on followed by church wedding.
They had a baby boy.
2. Happiness did not last long due to frequent interference by Julias parents
3. Julia left for the US to work as a nurse. She never came back. Leouel tried to locate Julia but
failed.
Issue: WoN the marriage may be declared null by virtue of Art. 36 of FC

Held: No.
- Intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most
serious cases of personality disorders truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that must
be assumed and discharged
- Psychological incapacity must exist at time marriage is contracted

Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (from the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the
Archdiocese of Manila)
1. Gravity- must be grave or serious that the party cannot comply with marital obligations
2. Antecedence- rooted in history of the party (since early childhood)
3. Incurability- cure beyond the means of the party involved; most questionable may also mean
the medical remedy is inaccessible and beyond means of the party

Padilla dissenting opinion:
- clear is inability to comply with basic marital obligation which is to live and cohabit with husband
- although art 36 may be prone to abuses there are safeguards provided such as the intervention
of the State through the public prosecutor
- injustice to deny petition when the wife ceased to exist
- Effects of the decision
1. may make the petitioner a habitual tryster or someone who is involved in illicit relations
with women
2. deny the petitioner opportunity to turn a new leaf in his life


Republic v. CA and Molina
Facts:
1. Roridel and Reynaldo were married
2. In October 1986, they had an intense quarrel
3. The wife petitioned for declaration of nullity of marriage on grounds of psychological incapacity
4. According to wife, the husband is highly immature, quarrelsome, a king to be served, financially
irresponsible and jobless
5. According to husband, wife refused to perform marital duties such as household duties and
failed to handle finances
6. Procedural history
a. Trial court- granted
b. CA- granted

Issue: WoN marriage may be declared null due to psychological incapacity

Held: NO.
- No showing of psychological defect but mere difficulties and outright neglect of performance of
some marital inability. Not that they are incapacitated but it was just that they opted not to fulfill
obligations.
- Expert testimony showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility.
If at all, it merely shows loves temporary blindness to the faults and blemished of the beloved.

Court invited two amici curiae, Oscar Cruz, Vicar Judicial of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of
the Catholic Church and Justice Puno, member of the Family Code Revision Committee


Guidelines in the interpretation of Art. 36 of the Family Code (accdg. To Maam Beth this is a form of
judicial legislation)
1. Burden of proof belongs to plaintiff. Doubts must be in favor of validity of marriage
2. Root cause of psychological incapacity must be
a. Medically or clinically identified
b. Alleged in the complaint
c. Sufficiently proven by experts
d. Clearly explained in the decisions
3. Must be proven to be existing at the time of celebration of the marriage
4. Incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically INCURABLE and incapacity must be
relevant to assumption of marital obligations
5. Grave enough to bring about disability
6. Essential marital obligations must be those enumerated in Articles 68 to 71 of Family Code (rights
and obligations between husband and wife) and Articles 220, 221, 225 (parents to their children)
- Art. 68- live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render
mutual help and support
- Art. 69- domicile
- Art. 70- jointly responsible for support of familyexpenses from community
property
- Art. 71- management of the household
7. Interpretation of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Churchbe given
respect by the courts, persuasive weight (purpose of the provision is to harmonize civil law with
religious faith of the people)
8. Solicitor General as counsel for the state.
a. Must issue certification (of no collusion- no contradicting testimony, parties did not
collude to make the marriage null) stating reasons for agreement or opposition within
25 days from the date the case deemed submitted for resolution of the court

Marcos v. Marcos
1. Husband and wife both in the military. They met when they were assigned in Malacanang
sometime in 1980.
2. After the downfall of President Marcos, husband left the military service.
3. Husband failed to engage in gainful employment quarrel husband would beat wife
forced sex/ physical harm to children
4. Missing child. The husband ran after the wife and sister in law with a samurai
5. The wife submitted herself to psychologist will the appellant did not.

Held:
- Personal medical or psychological examination is not a requirement for a declaration of
psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of evidence the wife presented does not show
incapacity. (Alleged incapacity of husband was only inferred from the testimony of the wife,
common children, wifes sister and social worker)
- Alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the inception of the
marriage (only when he lost and his job and was not gainfully employed)
- Art. 36 must not be confused with divorce or legal separation
- Evidence presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for legal separation, not for declaring a
marriage void.

Antonio v. Reyes
Facts:
The wife is a pathological liar. Lied about the following
a. Actual occupation, income, educational attainment, and family background
b. Concealed that she has an illegitimate son
c. Made up story that her brother-in-law attempted to rape her
d. Misrepresented self as a psychiatrist, a psychologist and signer and freelance voice
talent of Black Gold Recording Company
HELD:
- Difficult to see how an inveterate pathological liar would be able to commit the basic tenets of
relationship
- Present case sufficiently satisfies the guidelines in Molina
- From the totality of the evidence, can it be definitively concluded that respondents condition is
incurable? It would seem, at least, that respondents psychosis is quite grave, and a cure thereof
a remarkable feat. Certainly, it would have been easier had petitioners expert witnesses
characterized respondents condition as incurable. Instead, they remained silent on whether the
psychological incapacity was curable or incurable.
- At the time the case was in RTC, Molina case (1997) was not yet promulgated. No requirement
yet that it has be medically proven.
- We stated earlier that Molina is not set in stone, and that the interpretation of Article 36 relies
heavily on a case-to-case perception. It would be insensate to reason to mandate in this case an
expert medical or clinical diagnosis of incurability, since the parties would have had no impelling
cause to present evidence to that effect at the time this case was tried by the RTC more than ten
(10) years ago.
- All told, we conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for declaration of nullity
under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC correctly ruled, and the Court of Appeals erred in
reversing the trial court.
- Although there is love on the part of respondent, the court held Marriage, in legal
contemplation is more than the legitimization of a desire of people in love to live together

Republic v. Melgar
Facts:
1. Norma and Eulogio Melgar were married in 1965 and had 5 children
2. Norma filed for declaration of nullity of marriage on ground of psychological incapacity citing
immaturity, habitual alcoholism, unbearable jealousy, maltreatment, laziness and abandonment
of family
3. Norma testified that husband: dismissed from work, one time became jealous of officemate,
dragged Norma home and beat her up. Normas brother rescued Norma.
4. Eulogio severed all communications with family
5. OSG: no sufficient proof of psychological incapacity

HELD:
NO.
Marriage not null. No psychological incapacity was established.
Although psychological examination is not a condition sine qua non for declaration of nullity of
marriage based on psych incapacity, TOTALITY of EVIDENCE must show that the person is psych
incapacitated to fulfill marital obligations.
Expert witness would have strengthened Normas claims. There can be no conclusion of psychological
incapacity where there is absolutely no showing that the "defects" were already present at the inception
of the marriage or that they are incurable
Eulogios immaturity, habitual alcoholism, unbearable jealousy, maltreatment, constitutional
laziness, and abandonment of his family. These circumstances by themselves cannot be equated
with psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code.
At best, the case would fall under, Article 55 of Family code, legal separation.

Although the court is aware of Normas marital predicament, the law and jurisprudence are against her.
The court has no other option but to apply the law no matter how harsh it may be.



Dimayuga-Laurena v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
1. During honeymoon, one of the respondents house helpers were invited to sleep in their hotel
suite.
2. When the wife had miscarriage, the husband only watched tv.
3. Respondent gave priority to his parents, comes home past midnight, womanizer.
4. Did not live in same house for three yearsrespondent lived a bachelors life
5. Respondent had feminine tendencies

HELD:
Petitioner failed to prove respondents psychological incapacity.
Totality of evidence failed to show psych incapacity. The session between Dimyuga-Laurena and
psychiatrist was only for 2-hours vague and ambiguous testimony failed to identify the root cause
and ascertain incurability of Laurenas psychological incapacity

NOTE: Examination by a psychologist is expendable BUT identifying the root cause of psychological
incapacity is NECESSITY.




Te v. Te
Facts:
1. The couple initially eloped but later on due to lack of money went back to respective homes
2. Threats of suicide by the woman
3. Uncle forced the two to get married stayed at uncles place husband lived like a prisoner
(not allowed to get out unaccompanied, uncle showed guns and warned the husband not to
leave the wife)
4. Husband escaped and lived with family. Hid from Rowena.
5. Husband filed for annulment of marriage on basis of psychological incapacity
HELD:
Marriage void after finding both parties afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological
incapacity.
Various scientific psych tests were administered to both parties
Results:
Both were dubbed to be emotionally immature and recklessly impulsive upon swearing marital vows
Husband- dependent personality disorder
Wife- narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder

Presentation of expert proof conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of
psychological incapacity

Court should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the findings of experts,
researchers in psychological disciplines and by decisions of church tribunals.

Molina became a straitjacket allowing sociopaths, etc. to pervert the sanctity of marriage.

Note that Art. 36no marriage to speak of. It provides a decent burial to a stillborn marriage

Ting v. Ting
Facts:
1. Couple met in medical school. Later on, they got married.
2. Carmen filed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Art. 36
a. Habitual drunkard and gambler (gambling debts)
b. Assault and forced sex
c. Refused to give financial support
Held:
1. WoN the court had abandoned Molina Doctrine
NO. The court has not abandoned Molina doctrine. Merely liberalized it.
Must consider the following
1. expert opinion (not condition sine qua non because its too expensive and may be accessible to
everyone)
2. totality of evidence
Important that court must decide on case-to-case basis. Based on the facts of each case.
In the case at bar, the petitioners had full opportunity to present professional and expert
opinions of psychiatrist

2. WoN marriage in the case at bar is null on grounds of psych incapacity
NO. Respondent failed to prove defects
a. defect was not present at time of celebration of marriage
b. not proven to be incurable
c. Evaluation of 2 psychiatristscontradicts each other. The Doctor who testified that there was
nothing wrong with respondent considered another evaluation made by a psychiatrist in South
Africa court balanced tilts against this doctor; also relied on testimony of respondents
brothers showing absence of antecedence of psych incapacity

Tsoi v. CA
Facts
1. No sex happened during first night of marriage contrary to the expectation of wife. No sex
happened at all!
2. According to woman:
a. Impotent
b. Homosexual did not show penis
c. Observed using eyebrow pencil, used cleansing cream of his mother
d. Only married to acquire citizenship
3. According to husband, he does not want to annul marriage because
a. He loves her very much. No defect on his part. Relationship still young may still be
reconciled
b. The wife was the one refusing to have sex
4. According to doctor, husband is capable of erection.

HELD: Marriage was declared null.
No coitus between them immaterial who refuses to have sex because any of the party may file
nullity of marriage
Abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is indicative of a serious
personality disorder demonstrates inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
Sex a marital obligation nonfulfillment would result to destruction of the integrity of marriage
Doubts on allegations of husband: given Filipino culture, wife sacrificed privacy in order to put
her life in order

Note: No mention of sex as part of Rights and Obligations between Spouses. Court equated right and duty
to live with each other with duty to procreate.

Failure to comply obligation psychological incapacity VOID (Why?
If mere impotence VOIDABLE (Why?



Leni Choa v. Alfonso Choa
Facts:
1. Couple was married. Out of the union, two children were born.
2. According to respondent, the petitioners filing of cases such as perjury, false testimony,
concubinage and deportation are tantamount to wifes psychological incapacity. Abnormal for a
wife to do this instead of protecting husbands name as father of children. Also alleged that the
wife lacked intention of procreative sexuality. Also, does not help in household chores, does not
take care of child, wants husband to hire an attendant for the child.
Summary: 1. Lack of attention to children, immaturity and lack of an intention of procreative sexuality

HELD: No proof of wifes psychological incapacity.
In the case at bar, the evidence adduced by respondent merely shows that he and his wife could
not get along with each other. There was absolutely no showing of the gravity or juridical
antecedence or incurability of the problems besetting their marital union.
Respondents pious peroration that petitioner lacked the intention of procreative sexuality is
easily belied by the fact that two children were born during their union. Moreover, there is
absolutely no showing that the alleged defect was already existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.
witness, Dr. Antonio M. Gauzon, utterly failed to identify and prove the root cause of the
alleged psychological incapacity
totality of evidence presented by respondent was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity

Period for filing action
Article 39, Family Code
The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe. (as
amended by RA 8533, February 23, 1998)

Background:
Prior to amended: for marriages celebrated before the effectivity of Code action or defense by reason
of psych incapacity (art. 36) should be in 10 years after the effectivity of Code in 1988.

Problem: a lot of spouses failed to file said action within the aforementioned period.

Solution: RA 8533actions and defenses for declaration of absolute nullity, including those under RA 36
imprescriptible

Imprescriptible- not to be taken away by prescription or by lapse of time

Who has personality to file suit for nullity?

Ninal v. Badayog
Facts:
1. Pepito Ninal and Teodulfa Bellones were married and had four children, petitioners herein.
2. Pepito shot and killed Teodulfa resulting to her death
3. 1 year and 8 months later, Pepito and respondent Bayadog got married without marriage license
but had affidavit stating cohabitation for at least 5 years.
4. Pepito died in 1997.
5. Children of Pepito, to protect successional rights petition of nullity of marriage of Pepito to
Norma Badayog
6. Lower court dismissed petition, they were not the proper party to file for annulment under Art.
47 through analogy
HELD:
1. WoN lack of marriage license made marriage invalid
Marriage is invalid.
Marriage was solemnized prior to the Family Code, the applicable provision to the case is Art. 53
of the Civil Code which requires a marriage license and absence of which makes the marriage
void ab initio.
The exception to this is Art. 76 of Civil Code re: cohabitation. But the Pepito and Norma also did
not satisfy the requirement of at least 5 years of cohabitation in nature of a perfect union that is
valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract.
2. WoN the children has personality to file petition to declare their fathers marriage void after
his death
YES children have personality to file petition.
Absence of a provision in the Code pertaining to who can file petition
Action or defense is imprescriptible void marriage can be questioned even after death


Ablaza v. Republic of the Philippines
Facts:
1. Ablaza (brother of the deceased husband) filed for the declaration of nullity of marriage between
late brother Cresencio Ablaza and Leonila Honato.
2. According to him, the marriage of the 2 was celebrated without marriage license
a. No marriage license number in marriage certificate
b. Certification from civil registrar
3. Insisted that he is entitled to one-half of the properties acquired by Cresencio before his death
HELD:
Validity of marriage is tested according to law enforced at time marriage was contracted