There is no divorce in the Philippine legal system, but one of the ways to

declare a marriage void is through declaration of psychological incapacity. This

has been made into law by the Commission which is found in Article 36 of the
Family Code.

Psychological incapacity has no well-defined term in the Family Code. In

Santos vs. CA1, it has been emphasized that the committee did not give any
examples of psychological incapacity for fear that the giving of examples would
limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. Due
to this, the Committee would judge cases of psychological incapacity on a case-to-
case basis.

Psychological incapacity does not equate to mental incapacity. If it does,

then it would only amount to insanity. It is also not physical incapacity (e.g.
impotency) because the same is a ground for annulment. Jurisprudence provides
that psychological incapacity refers to a serious personality disorder, an illness to
the psychological makeup of an individual, demonstrative of utter insensitivity to
give meaning or significance to the marriage. According to Rabuya, one who is
afflicted of psychological incapacity is unaware of the essential marital obligations
and even if he is aware, he is incapacitated to give due assumption to these
obligations. 2

An example of a ground for psychological incapacity for the dissolution of

marriage is dependent personality disorder. Thus, in Te vs. Te and Halili vs. Halili3,
the Supreme Court held that: if a person has the characteristics of (1) A lack of
self-esteem and inability to decide on his own; (2) That he is in constant fear of
being rejected or abandoned; (3) That the person is sensitive to other criticisms;
and (4) That the person allows himself to be dominated by others, then this
would constitute as a complete ground for psychological incapacity under
dependent personality disorder.

In Reyes vs. Reyes4, the Supreme Court held that the spouse was
irresponsible due to manifestations of business failures. He then continued to
ignore his family while he travels on his own. Lastly, when his wife underwent a
1
GR. No. 112019
2
Elmer Rabuya, The Law on Persons and Family Relations 215 (2017)
3
GR. No. 161793, GR. No. 165424
4
GR. Nos. L-21703-04
serious surgery, he then did not show up for support. Instead, he just kept on
reading the newspaper and ignored the issue. The husband is so indifferent to the
needs of the wife. He is not capable of decision-making unless given the blessing
of his parents. This is also an example of a dependent personality disorder.
Another ground for psychological incapacity is Anti-Social Narcissistic Personality
Disorder. This is when a person is intolerant to other flaws and mistakes. In short,
a person is suffering from superiority complex.

Pathological lying is also a ground for psychological incapacity. It has been

ruled in the case of Antonio vs. Reyes5 that since one of the essential obligations
of marriage is to observe an honest an open communication with one another,
then pathological lying would defeat the purpose of this obligation. Thus, it has
been held that pathological lying would be a valid ground for nullity of marriage
under psychological incapacity.

An interesting case in Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals6 also held that the
refusal to have sexual intercourse with one another will render the marriage
nullified under psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court held that sexual
intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is incidental in
marriage that one of its goal is to procreate.

The characteristics of psychological incapacity are as follows: (1) Juridical

antecedence; (2) Incurability; and (3) Gravity.

In juridical antecedence, the said illness must exist at the time of the
marriage. It can also be prior to the marriage so long as its manifestations showed
after. The second characteristic of incurability means that the incapacity has no
cure and if there is any, it would be beyond the means of the person concerned.
In gravity, the incapacity or the illness must be grave that it would be the cause of
the said incapacity. In Ferraris vs. Ferraris where the husband was a womanizer
and going to frequent travel destinations, it has been held that it is not
psychological incapacity but more of a difficulty or an outright refusal to perform
his marital obligations.

5
GR. No. 155800
6
GR. No. 119190