PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

I. Definition:
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 as expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code. (Santos vs. Court
of Appeals, 240 SCRA 20 (1995)
Burden of Proof:
The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests upon petitioner.
The Supreme Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to
protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution
and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. (Hernandez vs. Court of
Appeals, 320 SCRA 76 (1999)
Characteristics:
Psychological Incapacity is characterized by:
(a) Gravity;
(b) Juridical antecedence; and
(c) Incurability. (Santos vs. CA, ibid)
Interpretation and Application of Article 36:
The guidelines for the interpretation and application:
(1) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Doubts should be resolved in
favor of vaildity;
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
a) medically or clinically identified (i.e. it must be psychological, not
physical, although the maifestations may be physical);
b) alleged in the complaint;
c) sufficiently proven by experts (i.e. qualified psychiatrists or clinical
psychologists);
d) clearly explained in the decision.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, although its manifestation need not be
perceivable at such time.
(4) The incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable. Incurability may be absolute or relative only to the other spouse.

The incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of the marriage

obligations.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential marital obligations.
(6) The essential marital obligations are those embraced by Arts. 68-71 and
Arts. 220, 221, and 225 of the Family Code.
The non-performed obligation must be stated in the petition, proven by
evidence, and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by Catholic matrimonial courts (National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal), while not controlling or decisive, should be given
great respect by our courts.
Ideally, what is decreed canonically void should also be declared
civilly void.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
solicitor general to appear as counsle for the State. No decision should be
handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will
be quoted in the decision, briefly stating the reasons for his agreement or
opposition. The solicitor general, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall
submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date
the case is deemed submitted for resolution. (Republic vs. Court of
Appeals and Molina, 268 SCRA 198 (1997)
Who May File:
A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code may be filed even by the
incapacitated party. (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 324
(1997)
Guideline:
The ground required for declaration of nullity of a marriage is not simply the
neglect by the parties to the marriage of their marital responsibilities and
duties, but a defect in their psychological nature which renders them
incapable of assuming and performing such marital responsibilities and
duties. It is not enough that the parties neglected to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is required that they must be
incapable of doing so.
Grounds:
1. Neurosis
2. Psychosis
3. Homosexuality in men or lesbianism in women

4. Satyriasis in men or nymphomania in women, i.e., excessive and

promiscuous sex hunger
5. Extremely low intelligence
6. Immaturity, i.e., lack of an effective sense of rational judgment and
responsibility
7. Epilepsy, with permanent, recurring maladaptive manifestations
8. Habitual Alcoholism
9. Criminality, the condition by which a person consistently gets in
trouble with the law or with socially established norms of conduct
10.Paraphilia, a psychological preference for or addiction to unusual
sexual practices, which includes pedophilia, a species of paraphilia, in
which children are preferred sexual objects.
11.Impotence, which makes a person completely powerless to perform
sexual intercourse; and
12.Priapism, a pathological condition afflicting males characterized by
persistent erection of the penis.
Not Grounds:
Failure of respondent to provide material support to, and his resort to
physical abuse and abandonment of his family are not sufficient to establish
psychological incapacity on his part. (Marcos vs. Marcos, G.R. No.
136490, October 19, 2000)
Requirement:
The personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent is not
a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. The
psychologists examination of the petitioner was held to be sufficient.
(Marcos vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000)
The evidence presented must adequately establish psychological incapacity
as having been present at the time the marriage was contracted and as being
incurable. (Marcos vs. Marcos, Ibid)
The alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and
abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for finding that he
is suffering from a psychological incapacity within the contemplation of
the Family Code. Expert testimony should have been presented to
establish the precise cause of private respondents psychological
incapacity, if any, in order to show that it existed at the inception of the
marriage. (Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 126010,
December 8, 1999)
Damages:
There can be no action for damages between husband and wife merely
because of breach of a marital obligation. (Ty vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 127406, November 27, 2000)

Effects/Consequences:
1. During the pendency of the action and in the absence of adequate
provisions in a written agreement between the spouses, the court shall
provide for the support of the spouses and the custody and support of their
common children. The court shall give paramount consideration to the moral
and material welfare of said children and their choice of the parent with
whom they wish to remain as provided for in Title IX. It shall also provide
for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. (Art 49, Family Code)
2. The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the
case may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated. (par. 2, Art. 43, Family
Code)
3. The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation,
partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and
support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive
legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial
proceedings.
All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the
conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceeding for liquidation. (Art.
50, FC)
NOTE: In a void marriage, under Article 36 of the Family Code, the
property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed
by the provisions of Article 147 of the FC.
4. Article 51, FC
5. Article 52, FC
6. Article 53, FC
7. Article 54, FC
I- CASE LAWS
1) The prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with
his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity. (Chi
Ming Tsoi vs. CA, 266 SCRA 324).
2) Proof of acquisition of property during the marriage is a condition
sine quo non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal
partnership. (Estonina vs. CA, 266 SCRA627)
3) The psychological incapacity must exist at the time the marriage is
celebrated. (Republic vs. CA, 268 SCRA 198). Mere showing of
irreconcilable difference and conflicting personalities in no wise
constitutes psychological incapacity. (Republic vs. CA).
The following guidelines are handed down in Republic vs.
Court of Appeals:

a.
The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs
to the plaintiff;
b.
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (1)
medically identified; (2) alleged in the complaint; (3) sufficiently proven by
experts; and (4) clearly explained the decision;
c.
The psychological incapacity must also be proven to be
existing at the time of the celebration of marriage;
d.
Such psychological incapacity must also be shown to be
medically or clinically permanent or incurable;
e.
Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage;
f.
The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by
Article 36 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;
g.
Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the Philippines, while not controlling or
decisisve, should be given respect by our courts; and
h.
The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State.
4) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to
the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existense and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. (IBID).
5) 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.
Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrist and
clinical psychologists. (Republic vs. CA)
6) The facts to be proven:
a) The incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable;
b) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of
the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage;
c) Non-complied marital obligations must be stated in the petition,
proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision. (IBID)
7) Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of
marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place
other evidence may be presented to prove marriage. (Balogbog vs. CA, 269
SCRA 259)

8) The husbands acquisition by succession of parcel of land during

his marriage to his wife simply means that the lot is his exclusive property
because it was acquired by him during marriage by lucrative title pursuant to
the provisions Article 148 of the Civil Code. (Tan vs. CA. 273 SCRA 229)
9) The SC cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his
dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond which should be entered
into because of love, not for any other reason. (Figueroa vs. Barranco, Jr.
276 SCRA 445)