SUBMITTED TO:

ATTY. MA ELIZA V. USTARES

Law Professor

SUBMITTED BY:

CHERRIE MAE R. GABINETE

First Year - A

PRINCESS NAOMI S. LAGROSA

First Year – A
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY:
AISSA LYN B. TOANG- TOANG Views and interpretation as ground for
First Year – A
declaring the nullity of Marriage
GENBAN NOREEN T. CASAIG
First Year – A

December
2022

1
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY:
Views and interpretation as grounds for
declaring the nullity of Marriage

2
 OBJECTIVES

A. Legal definition of Psychological Incapacity

B. Legal Requisites of Psychological Incapacity as ground of nullity for

Marriage

C. Different views and interpretation of the requirements of Psychological

Incapacity as a ground for declaring marriage null and void.

INTRODUCTION

3
 It has been 36 years since psychological incapacity was recognized as a
ground for declaring a contract null and void marriages in the Philippines under
the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209 s. 1987).

It is enshrined in Article 36, which states that:

"(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 Family Code of the Philippines gives married couples

in the Philippines three options if they need or want to separate: an annulment, a
legal separation, or seeking a declaration of the nullity of marriage, wherein the
declaration of nullity on the grounds of psychological incapacity has been the
most common defense by the aggrieved parties.

There is no definition of what that was, and it was left out to the court to
decide on how a marriage can be considered void or invalidated based on one of
the spouses having difficulty or non-fulfillment of the marital obligation.
In the case of Ngu-Te vs. Yu-Te GR No. 161793 February 13, 2009

“Opinions of experts like psychologists are important evidence and

carries weight and may in some cases be decisive in a case. The
actual medical examination should be dispensed with only if the
totality of evidence is presented is enough to support a finding of
psychological incapacity.”

***

PRACTICAL REVIEW OF SUBJECT MATTER

4
 The Philippines is known to be very conservative when it comes to marriage
laws. It was lay down in the definition in Article 1 of the Family Code:

“Marriage as a special contract of permanent union entered into by

a man and a woman in accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution, the nature, consequences, and incidents
of which are governed by law and are not subject to stipulation,
except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations
during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.”

Article XV, section 2 states that “Marriage is an inviolable social institution,

is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state.”

Some notable cases that support the belief in marriage can be

seen in the cases of:

In the case of TORING V. TORING, G.R. No. 165321, it stressed that the
law does not require that the allegedly incapacitated spouse be personally
examined by a physician or by a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the
declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. This
recognition, however, does not signify that the evidence, we shall favorably
appreciate, should be any less than the evidence that an Article 36 case, by its
nature, requires.

Evidence can come from persons intimately related to them, such as

relatives, close friends, or even family doctors or lawyers who could testify on the
allegedly incapacitated spouse’s condition at or about the time of marriage, or to
subsequent occurring events that trace their roots to the incapacity already
present at the time of marriage.

A fairly recent example is Kalaw vs. Fernandez. In 2011, the Supreme

Court actually denied Kalaw’s petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
under Article 36. In 2015, however, the Supreme Court reversed itself and
granted Kalaw’s petition after all.

The Court has stressed in Marcos v. Marcos that there is no requirement

for one to be declared psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined
by a physician, because what is important is the presence of evidence that

5
adequately establishes the party’s psychological incapacity. Hence, “if the totality
of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity,
then an actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be
resorted to.” On reconsideration, the Supreme Court gave credence to the
testimony of expert witnesses who testified to the psychological incapacity of
Kalaw’s wife. These expert witnesses included a psychologist and a priest who
was also a canon law expert of the Catholic Church.

The Supreme Court held that, although there is no requirement that a

party to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally
examined by a physician or psychologist, there is a need to prove the
psychological incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person
alleging such disorder. (Bier v. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, 27 February 2008)

Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that there is no requirement that the
defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or
psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage-
based psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of the
evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity. (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19 2000)

Correspondingly, the presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough

and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a
conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological
incapacity. (Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, 13 February 2009)

“Marriage is an institution, the maintenance of which the public is

deeply interested. It is a relation for life and the parties cannot terminate it
at any shorter period by virtue of any contract they may make.”(Goitia vs.
Campos Rueda, 1916)

“The security and stability of the state are largely dependent on

marriage. It is in the interest and duty of each member of the community to
prevent the bringing about of a condition that would shake its foundation
and lead to its destruction. The incidents of the status are governed by law,
not by the will of the parties.” ( Beso v. Daguman, January 28, 2000)

However, under Chapter III of the Family Code, marriage can be declared
null and void.

6
 Art. 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. (As
amended by Executive Order 227)

There are changes made in rules of annulment with regards to the Article
36 of the Family Code.

Historically, the following are the conditions of psychological

incapacity on the grounds of marriage nullity:

1. Gravity – the illness must be grave enough to prevent the party from
assuming the essential marital obligations
2. Juridical Antecedence – the incapacity must be existing at the time
of the celebration of marriage.
3. Incurability – it must be permanent and medically incurable.

These three must be proven in the petition for the annulment of marriage.

There are several notable cases on psychological incapacity to landmark

cases specifically on Santos v. Court of appeals.

LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner vs COURT OF APPEALS, defendant

GR No. 112019. January 4, 1995

Facts: Leouel and Julia exchanged vows on September 20, 1986.

A year after the marriage, the couple when quarreling over a
number of things including the interference of Julia’s parents into
their marital affairs. On May 18, 1998, Julia finally left for the
United States. Leouel was then unable to communicate with her
for a period of five years and she had then virtually abandoned
their family. Leouel filed a case for nullity on the ground of
psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court.

Issue: Whether or not the grounds of psychological incapacity in

this case should be appreciated.

7
 Ruling: The Supreme Court denied the petition. Psychological
incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical)
incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic
marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed
by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to
live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
support. The psychological condition must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated and must be incurable. Mere abandonment
cannot therefore qualify as psychological incapacity on the part of
Julia.

The Supreme Court expanded on the SANTOS rule in the MOLINA CASE in
1997, providing at least eight (8) rules for a court to consider when determining
whether marriage is subject to psychological incapacity.

1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the

plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity
of marriage and unity of the family.

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. Article 36 of the Family
Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical,
although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. 

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

celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was
existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the
illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have
attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

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

8
 regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of
the same sex. 

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party
to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild
characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as
downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less
ill will.

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 same Code in regard to parents and their children.
Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition,
proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the

Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should
be given great respect by our courts.

This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of
the Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be
given persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church — while remaining
independent, separate and apart from each other — shall walk together in
synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing
marriage and the family as the inviolable base of the nation.

8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the trial court
must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless
the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the
decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition,
as the case may be, to the petition. 

REPUBLIC v. MOLINA 268 SCRA 198

FACTS: Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985, in

Manila and bore a son. A year after the marriage, Reynaldo showed

9
 signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility”. In October 1986, the couple
had a very intense fight which estranged their relationship. On August
16, 1990, Roridel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her
marriage to Reynaldo contending that the latter is psychologically
incapable of complying with essential marital obligations. Petitioner
argues that “opposing and conflicting personalities” is not equivalent
to psychological incapacity.
ISSUE: Does opposing or conflicting personalities constitute
psychological incapacity as defined in Article 36 of the Family Code?
HELD:Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity,
juridical antecedence, and incurability. The evidence adduced by
respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not get
along with each other. There was no showing of the gravity of the
problem; neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. The court
further laid down the following guidelines in the interpretation and
application of Article 36 of the Family Code:
1) The burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff;
2) The root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically
or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint and proven by
experts;
3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the “time of the
celebration”
4) The incapacity must be incurable or permanent;
5) Such illness must be grave enough;
6) The essential marital obligations are those embraced by
Articles 68-71 and Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the Family
Code;
7) The interpretations given by the National Appellate of Tribunal
of the Catholic Church in the Philippines should be given great
respect by our courts; and
8) The court must order the fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the State and the Solicitor General must
issue a certification stating his reasons for his agreement or
opposition

On these grounds, the decision of RTC and CA declaring the marriage null
and void ab initio is reversed and set aside.

10
 Other notable cases include, Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
119190, January 16, 1997), where the Supreme Court held that one of the
essential marital obligations under the Family Code is ‘(t)o procreate children based
on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is
the basic end of marriage,’ and that constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will
finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. 13 In that case, the
senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital
obligation was held to be equivalent to psychological incapacity. However, in the
later case of Manuel G. Almelor vs The Hon. Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City,
Branch 254 and Leonida T. Almelor (G.R. No. 179620, August 26, 2008), the
Supreme Court, in denying the petition, held that homosexuality per se is only a
ground for legal separation. It is its concealment that serves as a valid ground to
annul a marriage. Concealment in this case is not simply a blanket denial, but one
that is constitutive of fraud.

However, less than four years later, the Supreme Court, in Leonil
Antonio v. Marie Ivonne F. Reyes (G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2005), gravitated
back to its ruling in Marcos, and held that personal examination of the subject by
the physician is not required for the spouse to be declared psychologically
incapacitated, considering the totality of evidence before it, and that the lies
attributed to the respondent indicate a failure on the part of respondent to
distinguish truth from fiction, or at least abide by the truth, and that her inveterate
proclivity to telling lies and the pathologic nature of her mistruths, were revelatory of
her inability to understand and perform the essential obligations of marriage. In
Republic of the Philippines v. Laila Tanyag-San Jose and Manilito San Jose
(G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006), the Supreme Court, citing Leni O. Choa v.
Alfonso C. Choa (G.R. No. 143376, November 26, 2002), held that given the facts
of this case, the doctor’s conclusion, which was based on information
communicated to the doctor, not by the party sought to be declared psychologically
incapacitated, by some other person, in this case, the other spouse, is hearsay, and
"unscientific and unreliable.”

In the later case of Edward Kenneth Ngo Te v. Rowena Ong Gutierrez

Yu-Te, (G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009), the Supreme Court held that the
presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of
the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave,
severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. In this case, the
Supreme Court suggested the inclusion in the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,18 an option for the

11
trial judge to refer the case to a court-appointed psychologist or expert for an
independent assessment and evaluation of the psychological state of the parties,
stating that this will assist the courts, who are no experts in the field of psychology,
to arrive at an intelligent and judicious determination of the case. The rule, however,
would not dispense with the parties’ prerogative to present their expert witnesses.

On May 2021, the Supreme Court of the Philippines promulgated the

decision of Tan-Andal v. Andal or the Andal Case. The decision is quite long,
and a lot of explanation the majority of which told the story on how the husband or
the guilty spouse was shown to be psychologically incapacitated.
The kicker here is that the Court of Appeal on appeal of the state reversed
the decision of the Regional Trial Court stating that the facts of psychological
incapacity were not proven sufficiently. Because in the trial stage, the psychiatrist
that was considered an expert for the case, did not interview the husband,
therefore the Court of Appeals said that an expert opinion should have an expert
observance. Or at least that the findings must be based on the facts that the
husband was the one that is psychologically incapacity. The expert or the
psychiatrist here based her opinion on the interviews of the wife and the sister of
the wife. The case of Andal changes the spectrum or the atmosphere of
annulment. Here are the changes:
In the case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, 11 May 2021, the
Supreme Court (SC) En Banc modified the interpretation of the requirements of
psychological incapacity as a ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage.

“According to the SC, psychological incapacity is not a medical but a

legal concept. It is a personal condition that prevents a spouse to
perform marital obligations in relation to a specific person that may
exist at the time of marriage but may have revealed through behavior
subsequent to ceremonies. It need not be a mental or personality
disorder. It need not be a permanent and incurable condition. The
testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory in all
cases. The totality of evidence must show clear and convincing
evidence to cause the declaration of nullity of marriage.”

On May 11, 2021, the Philippines’ Supreme Court announced that it had

modified the interpretation of the requirements of psychological incapacity as a
ground for declaring the nullity of marriages in court. The requirements are set forth
in article 36 of the Family Code, which provides that a marriage contracted by any
individual who was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential

12
obligations of marriage is void, even if the incapacity becomes evident after the
marriage is solemnized.

While deliberating on the case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, the court defined

“psychological incapacity” as a personal condition that prevents a spouse from
complying with fundamental marital obligations toward a specific partner and that
may have existed at the time of marriage but became evident only through behavior
subsequent to the marriage ceremony.

Furthermore, the court stated that such a condition need not be a mental
or personality disorder, or a permanent and incurable condition. Previously, proof of
the permanence and incurability of the condition had been required in
court, according to Philippine legal commentators.

In addition, the court stated that the testimony of a psychologist or

psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases, a determination that another
Philippine expert believes could result in shortening the process and minimizing
costs of court proceedings in annulment cases.

PRESS BRIEFER

May 12, 2021

During the En Banc deliberation on Tuesday, May 11, 2021, the Court

in the case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, unanimously
modified the interpretation of the requirements of psychological
incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage found in
Article 36 of the Family Code.

The Court pronounced that psychological incapacity is not a medical but

a legal concept. It refers to a personal condition that prevents a spouse
to comply with fundamental marital obligations only in relation to a
specific partner that may exist at the time of the marriage but may have
revealed through behavior subsequent to the ceremonies. It need not be
a mental or personality disorder. It need not be a permanent and
incurable condition. Therefore, the testimony of psychologist or
psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases. The totality of the evidence
must show clear and convincing evidence to cause the declaration of
nullity of marriage.

13
 Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was the ponente of the unanimous
decision. Several concurring opinions were also submitted. The full
opinion will be uploaded to the SC website once the PIO receives an
official copy.

CONCLUSIONS

To summarize, while the Supreme Court does not, in general, deviate

from established doctrines, it considers the entire picture of evidence presented,
including the testimony of an expert witness to provide a comprehensive
psychological assessment to the court. Each case is assessed and decided on
its own merits. The presence of an expert witness alone may not be enough
evidence to establish the marriage's invalidity on the grounds of because of
psychological incapacity The Court has not yet been established.

The Court remains to be conservative in the sense that Article 36 is not

meant to be used as a substitute for divorce but shall be used to declare a
marriage null and void only in the most serious of cases of psychological
incapacity.

The jurisprudence regarding psychological incapacity will continue to

evolve. The fact that change is content in all aspects would apply even in the
field of laws. The subject matter, its merits, the courts, and its decision will
always be challenged reversed or modified. Aside from those other factors such
as present acceptable practices, the emergence of flourishing beliefs, multi
customary views and the urgency or importance of the subject matter as to the
current situation may influences the decision of the courts.

The recent changes in the ruling regarding psychological incapacity is a

welcoming development. Some may argue whether they agree or not in favor of
the decisions, this is a natural or common practices whenever there are changes
in any jurisprudence. What matters is that we can depend on our courts that their
decision is always within the framework of our constitution. And every decision
will help secure independence freedom and justice for everyone. If there are
question regarding the decision, we can always submit in the same processes
and awaits for the evolvement of such challenges.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Executive Order No. 209, s. 1987”, The official Gazette of the Philippines
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/06/executive-order-no-209-s-1987/
Accessed January 5, 2022

https://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorderno209.htm#.YfimKepBy44
Accessed January 05, 2022

https://lawphil.net/
Accessed January 05, 2022

“PRESS BRIEFER”, Supreme Court of the Philippines,

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/18420/
Accessed January 24, 2022

“The Psychological Incapacity to Marry: Key Jurisprudence

and Survey of Cases from 1995 – 2019”,
http://www.ibp.ph/pdf/IBP%20Journal/IBP%20Journal%20(2021,%20Vol.
%2046,%20Issue%20No.%201).pdf
Accessed: January 29, 2022

“Psychological Incapacity – Its evolution”, Daily Tribune,

https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2021/05/24/psychological-incapacity-its-
evolution/
Accessed Jan 25, 2022

“Tan-Andal vs. Andal, on Psychological Incapacity”, The Hows of Law,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h31puHXm_uE&t=78s
Accessed January 29, 2022

“Marriage Annulments. Is it Easier Now? Developments from Andal Case.

Explain by a Law Dean:, The Dean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R8ws22u4qM
Accessed January 29, 2022

“FAMILY CODE: Void and Voidable Marriages, and Legal Separation”,

The Hows of Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39v9Z4z7tRs
Accessed January 29, 2022

15
16