At the outset, as enshrined in Article 36 of the Family Code: 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 first interpretation of Article 36 by the Supreme Court was in Santos v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995). Therein, the Court, after reviewing the Family Code Committee deliberations, ruled that psychological incapacity should mean “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.” It added that “psychological incapacity” must refer to “the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.” It further states that psychological incapacity “must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.”
Thereafter, in 1997, the Supreme Court promulgated Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997), where it laid down the guidelines for interpreting and applying Article 36, to wit:
(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; (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. (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. (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
These jurisprudential teachings had been the prevalent doctrine for the interpretation of Article 36 of the Family Code from 1997 up until the High Court revisited the same in the case of Tan-Andal vs Andal[1] promulgated in May 11, 2021. It noted that “the Court’s interpretation of the provision—beginning with Santos v. Court of Appeals and Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina —has proven to be restrictive, rigid, and intrusive on our rights to liberty, autonomy, and human dignity. It is time to restate the current doctrine in light of the evolution of science, subsequent cases, and other contemporary circumstances.”
With that, the Supreme Court, in the same case, thru Justice Marvic Leonen, set forth the following guidelines:
- Psychological incapacity is neithera mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, called “personality structure,” which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse’s personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.
- Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations.
- There will be no need to label a person as having a mental disorder just to obtain a decree of nullity. A psychologically incapacitated person need not be shamed and pathologized for what could have been a simple mistake in one’s choice of intimate partner, a mistake too easy to make as when one sees through rose-colored glasses. A person’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his or her marital obligations should not be at the expense of one’s dignity, because it could very well be that he or she did not know that the incapacity existed in the first place.
- Juridical antecedence is still required as it is an explicit requirement of the law. Article 36 is clear that the psychological incapacity must be existing “at the time of the celebration” of the marriage, “even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.” Proof of juridically antecedent psychological incapacity may consist of testimonies describing the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to a particular behavior.
- Psychological incapacity is not something to be cured. The Supreme Court held that the psychological incapacity contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code is incurable, notin the medical, but in the legal sense. This means that the incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. An undeniable pattern of such persisting failure to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.
- With respect to gravity, the requirement is retained, not in the sense that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be a serious or dangerous illness, but that “mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are excluded. The psychological incapacity cannot be mere “refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will.” In other words, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause.
[1] G.R. No. 196359