CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

1. How does the law define psychological incapacity?

Psychological incapacity as defined by law and jurisprudence relates to the utter

insensitivity and inability (not mere refusal) of the guilty spouse to assume basic marital

obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help

and support brought about by some mental (not physical) conditions which already

existed at the time of marriage. It is also required that such mental disorder is grave and

incurable.1

2. What instances fall under the most severe mental disorders?

Munchausen Syndrome, Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) and Dissociative

Identity Disorder (DID) are some examples that fall under the most severe mental

disorders. Said disorders make a person incapable of maintaining a healthy and

harmonious relationship.

3. Why should people suffering from the most severe mental disorders be prohibited to

remarry?

Prohibiting persons suffering from the most severe mental disorder is rational

because it allows the State to give much value on the sanctity of marriage. The

destruction of marriage, which is not only an inviolable social institution but also, the

1
Tsi Ming Choi vs. CA 266 SCRA 325
 foundation of the family is a substantive evil that needs to be dealt with. Marriage and

family are two important institution of the society which the state must protect.

The invocation of Article 36 of the Family Code as a ground to nullify a marriage, if

left unhampered could pose a serious threat on the inviolability of marriage. By allowing

psychologically incapacitated people to remarry without any distinction and restriction, the

State is ignoring its constitutional duty to protect and strengthen the family.

4. What factors will determine if a psychologically incapacitated person afflicted with the

most severe mental disorder be prohibited to remarry?

a. Nature and severity of the disorder: mental or personality disorder must impair the

persons’ ability to form and sustain a relationship

b. History of the psychologically incapacitated person

c. Findings of expert psychiatrist

d. Danger posed in allowing a psychologically incapacitated person to remarry

Conclusion

1. The lack of specificity in the law allowed many spouses to allege Article 36 of the

Family Code; resorting to it as a convenient way to dissolve their marriage.

2. The sanctity of marriage which the State seeks to protect is violated.

3. Not all persons declared psychologically incapacitated should be allowed to remarry.

Those persons suffering with the most severe mental disorders like Munchausen

Syndrome, Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) and Dissociative Identity Disorder

(DID) should be prohibited to remarry.

 4. The Court should consider several factors to determine who among those

psychologically incapacitated should be prohibited to remarry.

RECOMMENDATION

The researcher recommends that an additional paragraph should be added in Article 36 of

the Family Code:

Article 36: 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.

“The evidence presented by expert psychiatrist shall help the Court to determine

whether the psychological incapacity of one or both spouses is of such nature and

severity as would render him or her unfit for marriage. Such persons found to be

unfit for marriage, are prohibited to enter into subsequent marriage, provided that

the said provision shall be contained in the decision declaring the marriage null and

void.”

The following factors in determining whether a person is suffering from the most severe mental

disorder shall be considered:

a. Nature and severity of the disorder: mental or personality disorder must impair the

persons’ ability to form and sustain a relationship

b. History of the psychologically incapacitated person

 c. Findings of expert psychiatrist

d. Danger posed in allowing a psychologically incapacitated person to remarry

Also, a proviso should be added in Article 2 of the Family Code:

Article 2: No marriage shall be valid unless the essential requisites are present:

1. Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male or female;

2. Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer and;

“Provided that when a person will enter into subsequent marriage, the same

should not be disqualified under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the

Family Code.”

The researcher hopes that through the following proposed amendments, the constitutional

mandate to protect the sanctity of marriage will be further strengthened.