Psychological Incapacity as a ground for the nullifying void marriages is provided under Article 36 of the Family Code, to wit:
Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebrating, 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.
In the case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997), the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for interpreting and applying Article 36. The following are the Molina Guidelines:
1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff;
2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
a. medically or clinically identified;
b. alleged in the compliant;
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;
4) Incapacity must be shown to be clinically or medically 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;
6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code;
7) The interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling, shall be given great respects by the courts.
Since the promulgation of the Molina decision in 1997, only a few cases were found to have met the Guidelines laid down in Molina. Thus, in the case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal, the Supreme Court stated that “it is time for a comprehensive but nuanced interpretation of what truly constitutes psychological incapacity.”
Quantum of Proof
In the case of Molina, it is stated that the plaintiff has the burden of proving psychological incapacity, but is silent as to the quantum of proof required. In Andal, the Supreme Court ruled that “the plaintiff-spouse must prove his or her case with clear and convincing evidence.” The reason is that the presumption of marriage can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
Psychological Incapacity does not mean medical incapacity or equivalent
to a personality disorder
In the case of Santos vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995), the Supreme Court interpreted psychological incapacity as a mental incapacity, and was confined to “the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage”. This interpretation paved the way to treating or identifying psychological incapacity as a mental incapacity and personality disorders.
However, records of the Code Committee shows that psychological incapacity is not intended to be synonymous or equal to a mental incapacity, or to personality disorders. Thus, psychologists and psychiatrists as expert witnesses have become a standard in nullity cases in order to identify the personality disorder of the incapacitated spouse.
In Andal, the Supreme Court categorically abandoned the Molina guideline which required the medical or clinical identification of the psychological incapacity or root cause, and that the same must be sufficiently proven by experts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the psychological incapacity is
“neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proved through expert opinion”.
What must be proven is 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.”
Expert testimony is not required to prove these aspects of personality, and ordinary witnesses are sufficient as long as they have been present in the pre-married life of the spouses and can testify as to the behaviors that they have consistently observed from the incapacitated spouse.
Juridical antecedence is still required
That the psychological incapacity must be existent at the time of the marriage. This means that juridical antecedence is still required as it is specifically mandated under Article 36. The juridical antecedence may be proven by testimonial evidence on the spouse’s past experiences that led them to their psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity must be incurable, but in the legal sense
In Andal, the Supreme Court amended the third Molina guideline by saying that while psychological incapacity must be incurable, the incurability must be in the legal sense, and not in the medical sense. Incurability in the legal sense means that the “incapacity must be so enduring and persistent with
respect to the 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.”
Gravity
The requirement that the psychological incapacity must be grave is retained, which must be shown that it is caused by a genuinely serious cause. The Supreme Court clarified, though, that gravity is not in the sense that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be a serious or dangerous illness.
Essential Marital Obligations
In Andal, the Supreme Court ruled that the essential marital obligations are limited to those between the spouses. However, once the spouses have children, their obligations to their children are also a part of their spousal obligations to each other Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that not all kinds of failure to meet the obligations to their children will nullify the marriage, but only those that are shown to be of “grievous nature that it reflects on the capacity of one of the spouses for marriage”.
The Supreme Court summarized the amendment, as follows:
“To summarize, psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one’s essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is not required.
As an explicit requirement of the law, the psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and is caused by a durable aspect one’s personality structure, one that was formed before the parties married. Furthermore, it must be shown caused by a
genuinely serios psychic cause. To prove psychological incapacity, a party must present clear and convincing evidence of its existence.”
