II.

Exposition on Jurisprudential development of Psychological Incapacity

Article 36 of the Family Code provides for an entirely new ground to assail the validity of
marriage. It was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New
Code of Canon Law. The Family Code did not define the term psychological incapacity. It could
be well be that, in sum, the Family Code Revision Committee in ultimately deciding to adopt the
provision with less specificity than expected, has, in fact so designed the law as to allow some
resiliency in its application (Salita vs Hon.Magtolis, G.R. no. 106429)
Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for a declaration of the
nullity of the marriage, depends crucially more than in any field of law, on the facts of the case
(citing Separate opinion of Justice Padilla in Republic vs CA, 269 SCRA 198). Each case must
be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according
to its own facts (Republic vs Dagdag).
The psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code has not been meant to
comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses, it should refer to no less than a mental, not
merely physical incapacity that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties (Id,. at p. 34). The
meaning of psychological incapacity is confined in the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage and must exists at the time of the marriage. The celebrated case of
Santos vs CA enumerated three basic requirements of psychological incapacity, as a ground for
declaration of nullity: gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.
Today, it has been abused as a convenient divorce law and many judges and lawyers find
difficulty in applying said novel provisions. Thus, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines in the
interpretation and application of Article 36, creating the Molina Doctrine and A.M. No. 02-11-
10-SC. Each case of psychological incapacity must comply with the stringent guidelines laid
down by the court, anything less and fall short with the guidelines will warrant a denial of the
case (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages (AM 02-11-10-SC) ).
Throughout the history, from the time when Family Code took effect, different cases of
psychological incapacity had been celebrated. The most famous of which is the case of Chi Ming
Tsoi vs Court of Appealswhere the Court ruled that the senseless refusal of one of the parties
to fulfill the marital obligations is equivalent to psychological incapacity. This is so because; an
ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. Another case was Antonio vs Reyes, the Court ruled that
inability to distinguish fantasy from reality amounts to psychological incapacity, that ability to
invent, fabricate and live in the world of make believe warrants a defective mind.
The law does not require one to submit the person charge of psychological incapacity to be
examined by experts, what is important is the totality of evidence presented will be enough to
sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Failure of the spouse to choose to live in the
conjugal dwelling cannot be equated to psychological incapacity (Garcia vs Natividad). Also,
ones immaturity , irresponsibility, or even sexual promiscuity cannot also amount to such
incapacity (Mendoza vs Mendoza). Even mishandling the budget of the family, habitual
alcoholism, drug addiction, and the likes are not qualified, but only grounds for legal separation.
At the present time, Filipinos use psychological incapacity as a means to substitute divorce. It
must be understood that such incapacity is a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
Philippines is a Family Oriented state, before obtaining the decree of nullity of marriage, one
must passed the stringent requirements and the degree of the jurisprudence of the court. He must
clearly show in a clear and convincing manner that such psychological incapacity really exists,
not fabricated. Anything less will warrant a denial, for the state itself favors the sanctity of
family life. Its duty is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social
institution.