A Game-Changer in the New Normal:

Psychological Incapacity Now a “Legal”, not a Medical Concept

By: Atty. Christia Sheine E. Girao

Marriages nowadays may be declared null and void on the ground of psychological
incapacity without the need of the testimony of a Clinical Psychologist.

In the landmark case of Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. No. 196359, 11 May 2021), the
Supreme Court, through the ponencia of Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen, overturned its previous
interpretations of the grounds for psychological incapacity as the basis for the nullification of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

In the case as above stated, the Supreme Court en banc had the occasion to rule that
psychological incapacity is not a medical concept, but rather a legal concept. In so ruling, the
grounds for psychological incapacity do not need to be based on a mental or personality
disorder, neither does it need to be a permanent or incurable condition. This overturns the
previous ruling of the Court in Republic v. CA and Molina (G.R. No. 108763), wherein the
condition must be proven to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable in order to
constitute psychological incapacity. Prior to the Andal Ruling, The Molina Case laid down
stringent guidelines before a marriage may be declared null and void based on psychological
incapacity. Worthy of note are the following pronouncements laid by the court on the same,
thus:

(1) x x x

(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. x x x

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the

celebration” of the marriage.xx x

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically

permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even
relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. x x x

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability
of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. x x x In
other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the
person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure
that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and
thereby complying with the obligations essential to 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 Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
parents and their children. x x x

(7)x x x

(8)xx x The existence or absence of the psychological incapacity

shall be based strictly on the facts of each case and not on a priori
assumptions, predilections or generalizations. (Go-Yu v. Yu, G.R. No.
230443, 03 April 2019).

Fast forward to the present time, the Andal Ruling relaxed its requisites for the
declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity when it held that the diagnosis of a
psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases considering that psychological
incapacity is a “legal, not a medical concept”; and further, that the psychological make-up of
the spouse or spouses need not be characterized by “incurability”. Psychological incapacity is
now ruled in the Andal case as “a personal condition that prevents a spouse” from complying
with marital obligations but this incapacity may have manifested only after the wedding
ceremony, which does not need to be a mental or personality disorder, nor a permanent
condition.”

Veritably, not only will the dispensation of the required technical knowledge of the
clinical psychologist in court facilitate expediency for the resolution of these cases, the cost of
litigation for cases such as these would likewise be lowered. The Andal ruling is surely a game-
changer when it comes to Nullity of Marriage cases as it provides a much wider latitude of
discretion on the part of the trial court judge, without the complexities of having to examine a
clinical psychologist in court. With these recent developments, trial court judges can now rely
on the totality of evidence presented before them, without being limited to the stringent and
technical guidelines laid out by the Supreme Court in its earlier pronouncements. With the
Andal ruling, the Supreme Court definitely took a giant leap forward in adapting to the
demands of the ever-changing times.