An Analysis on the Ambit of the Term “Psychological Incapacity”

as Ground for Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the

Family Code, as Amended by Executive Order No. 227
Based on Judicial Decisions vis-à-vis the
Intent of its Framers

By:
Pallesco, Rosario Analyn D.
Article 36 of the Family Code states:
“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.”
• Absence of definition was intentional for it would
straightjacket the concept, and the cases that should
fall under it might be restricted by rule on ejusdem
generis.
(Justice Caguioa, member of Civil Code Revision Committee, main
proponent of incorporation of psychological incapacity in Family Code during
Congressional Hearing before Senate Committee on Women and Family
Relations, February 3, 1988)
Article 36 was anchored from Canon 1095 of the New
Canon Law adopted by the Roman Catholic Church,
which states: those who are incapable of contracting
marriage involve individuals who:
1) lack sufficient use of reason;
2) suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgement
concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties, to
be given and accepted mutually; and
3) for causes psychological in nature, are unable to
assume the essential obligations of marriage (New
Code of Canon Law, 1983. Pp. 71-72).
• “Church annulled marriages”- premise of the intent
of the framers that marriage annulment should be
accommodated also in Civil Law

• Church jurisprudence- allow other forms of mental

disorders and clinically undefined abnormalities to
be annulled under Civil Law
• Civil Code Revision Committee originally proposed
for absolute divorce, however, such intent was set
aside because of the impending opposition of the
Church.
• psychological incapacity 1) does not refer to mental
faculties nor is a defect of the minds; 2) refers to
lack of appreciation of one’s marital obligations or
lack of understanding of essential obligations of
marriage and 3) not a specie of vice of consent but,
rather, classified as special case.
Figure 1. Number of Petition for Declaration of Nullity on the Ground of
Psychological Incapacity filed before the Office of the Solicitor General

288

240

193

112

86 83 84

58 58

5
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Bills filed acknowledging the need for furtherance of a
legislative measure to provide for definition and amend
Article 36.
1) Senate Bill No. 2557- claims that generic nature of the
term has been a leeway for parties to end marital ties.

1. House Bill No. 1590- stresses that Article 36 has been

complicated, for Regional Trial Courts Judges have
varying interpretations to similar acts of psychological
incapacity; also pointing out that Article 36 has not
fulfilled its legislative intent given that it has become an
unjust remedy for being expensive and discriminatory.
Molina Guidelines provided stringent guidelines
Nevertheless, the Court is inconsistent in applying these
guidelines.
• Republic v Dagdag- “psychological incapacity must be
medically or clinically identified and proven by experts”
• Marcos v. Marcos- Molina Rules do not require
examination by a physician to be declared
psychologically incapacitated, merely required was the
presence of evidence that can adequately establish the
party’s psychological condition.
Santos v CA
• confined the meaning of psychological incapacity to “the most
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage, which must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated.” Santos v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
112019, 58 SCAD 17 (1995)
Marcos v Marcos
• “serious psychological illness, so grave and so permanent to
deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibility of the
matrimonial bond” because such statement is “a signifier
without a signified—a term without a concept.”
Statement of the Problem
How does the Supreme Court construe Article 36 of
the Family Code based on the grounds that it
considered as encompassing within the term
psychological incapacity shown from granted
declaration of nullity of marriage and on the contrary,
the grounds that it considered not within the ambit of
such term, gathered from denied declaration of nullity
of marriage?
Figure 2. Psychological Incapacity Related Cases Covered by this Study
2018
• Singson v Singson, GR No.
210766, January 08, 2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Tabora-Tionglico, GR No.
218630, January 11, 2018
• Espina-Dan v Dan, GR No.
209031, April 16, 2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Javier, GR 210518, April 18,
2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Mola Cruz, GR No. 236629,
July 23, 2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Tecag
• Arrieta v Arrieta, GR No.
234808, November 19, 2018
2019 2020
• Meneses v Lee-Meneses, GR • Republic of the Philippines v
No. 200182, March 13, 2019 Calingo, GR. No. 212717,
• Republic of the Philippines v March 11, 2020
Deang, GR No. 236279,
March 25, 2019
• Cortez v Cortez, GR No.
224638, April 10, 2019
• Cahapisan-Santiago v
Santiago, GR 241144, June
26, 2019
• Eliscupidez v Eliscupidez,
GR No. 226907, July 22,
2019
Figure 3. Summary of Granted and Denied Petitions for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage by the Lower Court

2018 2019 2020

• GRANTED CASES
• Singson v Singson, GR No.
210766, January 08, 2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Tabora-Tionglico, GR No.
218630, January 11, 2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Mola Cruz, GR No. 236629,
July 23, 2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Tecag
• Arrieta v Arrieta, GR No.
234808, November 19, 2018
• DENIED CASES
• Espina-Dan v Dan, GR No.
209031, April 16, 2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Javier, GR 210518, April 18,
2018
• GRANTED CASES • DENIED CASE
• Republic of the Philippines v • Republic of the Philippines v
Deang, GR No. 236279, March Calingo, GR. No. 212717,
25, 2019 March 11, 2020
• Cahapisan-Santiago v
Santiago, GR 241144, June
26, 2019
• Eliscupidez v Eliscupidez, GR
No. 226907, July 22, 2019
• DENIED CASES
• Meneses v Lee-Meneses, GR
No. 200182, March 13, 2019
• Cortez v Cortez, GR No.
224638, April 10, 2019
Figure 4. Summary of Granted and Denied Petitions for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage by the Supreme Court
2018
• GRANTED CASES
• Republic of the Philippines v
Javier, GR 210518, April 18,
2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Mola Cruz, GR No. 236629,
July 23, 2018
• Arrieta v Arrieta, GR No.
234808, November 19, 2018
• DENIED CASES
• Singson v Singson, GR No.
210766, January 08, 2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Tabora-Tionglico, GR No.
218630, January 11, 2018
• Espina-Dan v Dan, GR No.
209031, April 16, 2018
• Republic of the Philippines v
Tecag
2019 2020
• DENIED CASES • DENIED CASE
• Meneses v Lee-Meneses, GR • Republic of the Philippines v
No. 200182, March 13, 2019 Calingo, GR. No. 212717,
• Republic of the Philippines v March 11, 2020
Deang, GR No. 236279,
March 25, 2019
• Cortez v Cortez, GR No.
224638, April 10, 2019
• Cahapisan-Santiago v
Santiago, GR 241144, June
26, 2019
• Eliscupidez v Eliscupidez, GR
No. 226907, July 22, 2019
Grounds sufficiently proven to be within the ambit of psychological incapacity under the
Lower court:
 “dishonest, unreasonably extravagant at the expense of the family’s welfare, extremely
vain physically and spiritually, compulsive gambler, immature, an easy-going man and
guilty of infidelity, unable to render any help, support, or assistance to spouse, a
Pathological Gambling Personality Disorder” (Singson v Singson GR No. 210766,
January 08, 2018)

 “having night outs, parties and drinking sprees, high degree of immaturity, incessant
fighting, separated in fact, Narcissistic Personality Disorder characterized by heightened
sense of self-importance and grandiose feelings that he is unique in some way”(Republic
of the Philippines v Tabora-Tionglico, GR No. 218630, January 11, 2018)

 Histrionic Personality Disorder, a pervasive pattern of behavior characterized by excessive

emotionality and attention seeking; perceived by others as selfish, egotistical and
unreliable, seeking immediate gratification, over-reactive to even minor provocations,
suggestible, and lacking in analytical ability. (Republic of the Philippines v Mola Cruz,
GR No. 236629, July 23, 2018)
• Anxious and Fearful Personality Disorder with traces of
Dependent Personality Disorder and Avoidant Personality
Disorder (Republic of the Philippines v Tecag)
 abandonment and refusal to support the family (Arrieta v Arrieta, GR No.
234808, November 19, 2018)
 emotionally immature, irresponsible, gambler does not give
financial support to the family, Dependent Personality Disorder
(DPD) and Anti-Social Personality Disorder (APD) (Republic of the
Philippines v Deang, GR No. 236279, March 25, 2019)
 disregarding and abandonment of respondent husband's family
after quarrels with the petitioner (Cahapisan-Santiago v Santiago, GR
241144, June 26, 2019)
 Histrionic Personality Disorder with Anti-Social Personality
Traits (Eliscupidez v Eliscupidez, GR No. 226907, July 22, 2019)
Grounds sufficiently proven to be within the ambit of
psychological incapacity under the Supreme court:
 Narcissistic Personality Disorder, characterized by grandiose
self-existence, lack of empathy, disregard of feelings of his
spouse, inflicting of harm (Republic of the Philippines v Javier, GR 210518,
April 18, 2018)

 Histrionic Personality Disorder, characterized by excessive

emotionality and attention seeking (Republic of the Philippines v Mola
Cruz, GR No. 236629, July 23, 2018)

 abandonment and refusal to support her family (RTC decision

on nullity reinstated) (Arrieta v Arrieta, GR No. 234808, November 19, 2018)
Aspects in granting and denying petitions considered:
• Adherence to previous jurisprudence, e.g. Molina Ruling;
• Recognition of evidence presented, e.g. of psychological
assessment source;
• Alleged disorders/incapacities in relation to the ability of the
parties to perform essential marital obligations;
• Reiteration that Art. 36 of the Family Code is not a Divorce Law;
• Denying the petition in view of the Constitution provision on
indissolubility and inviolability of marriage
• Granting petition in view of the intent of the framers to liberalize
psychological incapacity as ground in nullity of marriage
The case of Marudan v Republic was invoked in Republic v
Tabora-Tionglico, held that petitioner-husband’s own
statement and testimony, assessment and finding of the
clinical psychologist cannot be relied upon to substantiate the
petitioner’s theory of psychological incapacity of his wife
because the wife never participated in the proceedings for
clinical psychologist’s evaluation.
In the case Republic of the Philippines v Javier, SC held that
the parameters in Republic v. Molina guidelines should not
straightjacket all petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage.
Because a marriage necessarily involves only two persons, the
spouse who witnessed the other spouse's behavior may "validly
relay" the pattern of behavior to the psychologist.
In Eliscupidez v Eliscupidez, however, in light of the
Constitutional provision on the marriage as inviolable and
indissoluble institution, and in adherence to the doctrine in Santos
v Court of Appeals and Molina case, the petition should be denied.
The psychological report of Dr. Tayag--which gathered
information with respect to the behavioral, social, emotional
characteristics of respondent were the petitioner himself, house
helper Oro, and respondent’s sister, was not given credence
because it is solely based on the self-serving testimonial
descriptions and characterizations of respondent rendered by the
petitioner and his witnesses. It was further stated that SC has long
been negatively critical in considering psychological evaluations,
presented in evidence, derived solely from one-sided sources,
particularly from the spouse seeking the nullity of the marriage.
Conclusion
The enumerated aspects of psychological incapacity
decisions, whether denied or granted, were stated in some
cases confusingly and were adopted in opposing manners.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• enact a legislation that will set the requisites to declare
nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity, i.e. a legislation or amendment to Art. 36 of
Family Code which will specify the grave personality
disorders within psychological incapacity, the necessity
of clinical psychologist’s report, the need of witnesses to
corroborate the findings of the psychologist/psychiatrist,
the qualified spouse/s to seek psychological report and
present it in court.