Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The number of annulment and nullity of marriage cases filed in the country
soured for the past years. In 2012, records from the Office of the Solicitor General
psychological, and economic abuse, among others, have been used to define
psychological incapacity. Perhaps, the term really escapes definition as it should evolve
legally, the only guidance being, is the failure to fulfill the essential obligations of
marriage. Then, from the theoretical legal point of view, it should be very difficult to
obtain a nullity of marriage. But why deluge from realities of couples not being able to
live harmoniously, when they would rather be with someone not psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations (Perez, 2009).
The evolution of jurisprudence and their concept of what psychological incapacity
seem to astound the manifestation of the term on marriages facing the brink of
invalidation. In Republic vs. Molina, Justice Padilla in his concurring opinion said that in
psychological incapacity cases, each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori
assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. In the field
of psychological incapacity as a ground nullity of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is
on all fours with another case. Reiterated in the case of Salita vs. Magtolis, Justice
Bellosillo quoted Justice Sempio-Diy, in her, Handbook on the Family Code, judges are
to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of
experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church
tribunals.
designated as it was by the Supreme Court, the case of Socorro Reyes vs. Ramon
Reyes, the marriage was nullified due to psychological incapacity, despite evidence of
substantial cohabitation from 1976 to 1997 and the siring of three children. How could
that happen?
The impression that psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to
understand the obligations of marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to comply with
them has been restated in some of these cases. But then again, triteness of the court in
saying, each case is distinct and should be treated differently anchored its decisions by
typifying psychological incapacity by (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be
4
A clear and
on
Jan.
6,
2016
at
http://philippinefamilylawperspectives.wordpress.com/
Jordan Chan Paz vs. Jeanice Pavon Paz, G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010.
Joselita Salita vs. Hon. Delilah Magtolis & Erwin Espinosa, G.R. No. 106429, June 13,
1994.
Juanita Carating-Siayngco vs. Manuel Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004.
Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009.
Knows, J. (8 August 2013). Family law: avoiding fallacious arguments in establishing
psychological
incapacity.
Retrieved
on
January,
2016
at
http://juanknows.wordpress.com/
Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006.
Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals & Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos. G.R. No. 112019,
January 4, 1995.
Lorna Guillen Pesca vs. Zosimo A. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001.
Manuel G. Almelor vs. The Hon. Regional Trial Court of Las Pias City, Branch 254 &
Leonida T. Almelor, G. R. No. 179620, August 26, 2008.
Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes vs. Ramon Reyes, G.R. No. 185286, August 18, 2010
Perez, V. S. (03 March 2009). Annulment and psychological incapacity. Legal Brief,
Asian Journal, San Diego California, U.S.A.
Renato Reyes So vs. Lorna Valera, G.R. No. 150677, June 5, 2009.
9
10