PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto

Castillo v. Republic G.R. No. 214064 February 6, 2017 Felipe’s sexual infidelity was a manifestation of his alleged
Psychological Incapacity, Art. 36, FC personality disorder, which is grave, deeply rooted, and
incurable.
ISSUE:
The Court is not persuaded that the natal or supervening
Whether or not the totality of evidence presented warrants, as disabling factor which effectively incapacitated him from
the RTC determined, the declaration of nullity of the marriage complying with his obligation to be faithful to his wife was
of Mirasol and Felipe on the ground of the latter’s medically or clinically established.
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Basic is the rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by
RULING: evidence, are not equivalent to proof, i.e., mere allegations are
not evidence.
Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion,
emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not The petition for review was denied.
by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity
under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person’s
refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of KALAW vs. FERNANDEZ G.R. No. 166357 September 19,
marriage. 2011 Psychological Incapacity Art. 36 Family Code

In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological ISSUE:

incapacity, the respondent’s unfaithfulness must be
established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, Whether petitioner has sufficiently proved that respondent
completely preventing the respondent from discharging the suffers from psychological incapacity.
essential obligations of the marital state; there must be proof
of a natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively RULING:
incapacitated him from complying with the obligation to be
faithful to his spouse. The petition has no merit. The CA committed no reversible
error in setting aside the trial courts Decision for lack of legal
It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical and factual basis.
or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological
incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is governed by
Article 36 of the Family Code which provides:
As discussed, the findings on Felipe’s personality profile did
not emanate from a personal interview with the subject ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time
himself. Apart from the psychologist’s opinion and petitioner’s of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply
allegations, no other reliable evidence was cited to prove that with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto
be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization. The trial court did not make factual findings which can serve
Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability as bases for its legal conclusion of psychological incapacity.
to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital
obligations. The burden of proving psychological incapacity is
on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated Republic vs. Molina and CA, G.R. No. 108763 February 13,
party, based on his or her actions or behavior, suffers a 1997 Psychological Incapacity
serious psychological disorder that completely disables him or
her from understanding and discharging the essential ISSUE:
obligations of the marital state. The psychological problem
must be grave, must have existed at the time of marriage, and Whether or not “opposing and conflicting personalities” is
must be incurable. equivalent to psychological incapacity.

In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that his wife RULING:
(respondent) suffers from psychological incapacity. He
presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses NO.
who concluded that respondent is psychologically
incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were In Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals this Court, speaking
premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which thru Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, ruled that “psychological
had not been sufficiently proven. Petitioners experts heavily incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (nor physical)
relied on petitioners allegations of respondents constant incapacity . . . and that (t)here is hardly any doubt that the
mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
friends, adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioners ‘psychological incapacity’ to the most serious cases of
experts opined that respondents alleged habits, when personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
performed constantly to the detriment of quality and quantity of insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
time devoted to her duties as mother and wife, constitute a marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the
psychological incapacity in the form of NPD. marriage is celebrated.” Citing Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former
presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the
Given the insufficiency of evidence that respondent actually Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, Justice Vitug wrote that “the
engaged in the behaviors described as constitutive of NPD, psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity,
there is no basis for concluding that she was indeed (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.”
psychologically incapacitated. Indeed, the totality of the
evidence points to the opposite conclusion. A fair assessment On the other hand, in the present case, there is no clear
of the facts would show that respondent was not totally remiss showing to us that the psychological defect spoken of is an
and incapable of appreciating and performing her marital and incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a “difficulty,” if not
parental duties. outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto
marital obligations. Mere showing of “irreconciliable psychological incapacity-those sufficiently evidenced by
differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise gravity, incurability and juridical antecedence-would succeed.
constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove 2. We consider the CA’s refusal to accord credence and
that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties weight to the psychiatric report to be well taken and warranted.
as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to The CA correctly indicated that the ill-feelings that she
be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor harbored towards Dominic, which she admitted during her
physical) illness. consultation with Dr. Samson, furnished the basis to doubt the
findings of her expert witness; that such findings were one-
The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she sided, because Dominic was not himself subjected to an actual
and her husband could nor get along with each other. There psychiatric evaluation by petitioner’s expert; and that he also
had been no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its did not participate in the proceedings; and that the findings
juridical antecedence nor its incurability. and conclusions on his psychological profile by her expert
were solely based on the self-serving testimonial descriptions
Mendoza vs. Republic G.R. 157649, Nov. 12, 2012 and characterizations of him rendered by petitioner and her
Psychological Incapacity witnesses.

ISSUES: By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article

36, it is logical and understandable to give weight to the expert
Is OSG appeal no longer required under A.M. No. 02-11-10? opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the
Whether or not the totality of evidence presented was enough psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the
to support a finding of respondent’s psychological incapacity. root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of
the psychological incapacity. However, such opinions, while
RULING: highly advisable, are not conditions sine qua non in granting
petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. At best, courts
The contention is grossly erroneous and unfounded. The must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable
Resolution nowhere stated that appeals by the OSG were no evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact, if
longer required. On the contrary, the Resolution explicitly the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a
required the OSG to actively participate in all stages of the finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical or
proceedings. The obvious intent of the Resolution was to psychological examination of the person concerned need not
require the OSG to appear as counsel for the State in the be resorted to. The trial court, as in any other given case
capacity of a defensor vinculi (i.e., defender of the marital presented before it, must always base its decision not solely
bond) to oppose petitions for, and to appeal judgments in favor on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the
of declarations of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings.
Family Code, thereby ensuring that only the meritorious cases
for the declaration of nullity of marriages based on
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto
It is undisputed that a second marriage between petitioner and
private respondent was contracted on December 8, 1999
during the subsistence of a valid first marriage between
Capili vs. People G.R. No. 183805, July 03, 2013 petitioner and Karla Y. Medina-Capili contracted on September
Bigamy 3, 1999. Notably, the RTC of Antipolo City itself declared the
bigamous nature of the second marriage between petitioner
ISSUE: and private respondent. Thus, the subsequent judicial
declaration of the second marriage for being bigamous in
Whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity of the nature does not bar the prosecution of petitioner for the crime
second marriage is a ground for dismissal of the criminal case of bigamy.
for bigamy.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the accused
RULING: may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if there is
a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage,
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes so long as the first marriage was still subsisting when the
the crime of bigamy as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary second marriage was celebrated.

Art. 349. Bigamy. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be

imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or UNSON III vs. HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO AND EDITA N.
subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been ARANETA
legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been G.R. No. L-52242 November 17, 1980 Child Custody
declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment (Habeas Corpus)
rendered in the proper proceedings.
ISSUE: To whom shall the custody of Teresa be granted?
The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore, are: (1) the
offender has been legally married; (2) the marriage has not RULING:
been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according In controversies regarding the custody of minors the sole and
to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent foremost consideration is the physical, education, social and
marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the
all the essential requisites for validity.9 respective resources and social and moral situations of the
contending parents. Never has this Court diverted from that
In the present case, it appears that all the elements of the criterion.
crime of bigamy were present when the Information was filed
on June 28, 2004. With this premise in view, the Court finds no difficulty in this
case in seeing that it is in the best interest of the child Teresa
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto
to be freed from the obviously unwholesome, not to say like when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the
immoral influence, that the situation in which private issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the
respondent has placed herself, as admitted by her, might parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts
create in the moral and social outlook of Teresa who is now in which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion;
her formative and most impressionable stage in her life. The or when there is a misappreciation of facts, which are
fact that petitioner might have been tolerant about her stay unavailing in the instant case.
with her mother in the past when she was still too young to
distinguish between right and wrong and have her own correct The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the
impressions or notions about the unusual and peculiar nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers
relationship of her mother with her own uncle-in-law, the to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before
husband of her sister’s mother, is hardly of any consequence the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so
now that she has reached a perilous stage in her life. permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to
Under the circumstances thus shown in the record, the Court assume.
finds no alternative than to grant private respondent no more
than visitorial rights over the child in question. Anyway, As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or
decisions even of this Supreme Court on the custody of minor isolated characteristics associated with certain personality
children are always open to adjustment as the circumstances disorders, there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the
relevant to the matter may demand in the light of the inflexible law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological
criterion. incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
PEREZ-FERRARIS vs. FERRARIS G.R. No. 162368 July 17, meaning and significance to the marriage.
2006 Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Psychological
Incapacity, Article 36 of the Civil Code It is for this reason that the Court relies heavily on
psychological experts for its understanding of the human
ISSUE: personality. However, the root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be fully
Whether or not the marriage of petitioner and respondent is explained, which petitioner failed to convincingly demonstrate.
void ab initio on the ground of respondent’s psychological
incapacity. Indeed, the evidence on record did not convincingly establish
that respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity.
RULING: There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were already
present at the inception of the marriage, or that those are
It is a well-established principle that factual findings of the trial incurable.
court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on
this Court, save for the most compelling and cogent reasons,
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto
We find respondent’s alleged mixed personality disorder, the How should “psychologically incapacity” under Art. 36 of the
“leaving-the-house” attitude whenever they quarreled, the Family Code be interpreted?
violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity,
the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to How should the doubt be resolved in voiding of marriage
spend more time with his band mates than his family, are not cases?
rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere
refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of RULING:
marriage. 1) In interpreting this provision, we have repeatedly stressed
that psychological incapacity contemplates “downright
In Republic v. Court of Appeals, where therein respondent incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the
preferred to spend more time with his friends than his family basic marital obligations”; not merely the refusal, neglect or
on whom he squandered his money, depended on his parents difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
for aid and assistance, and was dishonest to his wife regarding The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the juridical
his finances, the Court held that the psychological defects antecedence (i.e., the existence at the time of the celebration
spoken of were more of a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or of marriage), gravity and incurability of the condition of the
“neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations and errant spouse.
that a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
conflicting personalities in no wise constitute psychological 2) The Court stresses that marriage is an inviolable social
incapacity; it is not enough to prove that the parties failed to institution protected by the State. Any doubt should be
meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is resolved in favor of its existence its existence and continuation
essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, and against its dissolution and nullity. It cannot be dissolved at
due to some psychological, not physical, illness. the whim of the parties nor by transgressions made by one
party to the other during the marriage.
An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not a null and void
marriage. No less than the Constitution recognizes the sanctity QUIAO vs. QUIAO, et. al. G.R. No 176556 July 4, 2012 due
of marriage and the unity of the family; it decrees marriage as process, Family Code, vested right
legally “inviolable” and protects it from dissolution at the whim
of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be ISSUE:
“protected” by the state.
What is “vested right” from the perspective of the due process
Republic vs. Encelan, G.R. No. 170022, Jan. 9, 2013 Art. clause? Was petitioner’s “vested right” over half of the
36 of the Family Code, Psychologically incapacity common properties of the conjugal partnership violated when
the trial court forfeited them in favor of his children pursuant to
ISSUE: Article 63 (2) and 129 of the Family Code?

RULING:
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto
DONATO vs. LUNA G.R. No. L-53642 April 15, 1988
No. BIGAMY, Prejudicial Question

In the en banc Resolution dated October 18, 2005 for ISSUE:

ABAKADA Guro Party List Officer Samson S. Alcantara, et al.
v. The Hon. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita,it was held Whether or not a pending criminal case for bigamy should be
that: suspended in view of a civil case for annulment of marriage on
the ground that the latter constitutes a prejudicial question.
The concept of “vested right” is a consequence of the
constitutional guaranty of due process that expresses a RULING:
present fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice
is protected against arbitrary state action; it includes not only A prejudicial question has been defined to be one which arises
legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand but also in a case, the resolution of which question is a logical
exemptions from new obligations created after the right has antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the
become vested. cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is one
based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so
Rights are considered vested when the right to enjoyment is a intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or
present interest, absolute, unconditional, and perfect or fixed innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal
and irrefutable. From the foregoing, it is clear that while one action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts
may not be deprived of his “vested right,” he may lose the intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution
same if there is due process and such deprivation is founded would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or
in law and jurisprudence. issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the
accused would necessarily be determined. A prejudicial
In the present case, the petitioner was accorded his right to question usually comes into play in a situation where a civil
due process. action and a criminal action may proceed, because howsoever
the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
First, he was well-aware that the respondent prayed in her determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the
complaint that all of the conjugal properties be awarded to her. accused in a criminal case.

Second, when the Decision was promulgated, the petitioner The requisites of a prejudicial question do not obtain in the
never questioned the trial court’s ruling forfeiting what the trial case at bar. It must be noted that the issue touching upon the
court termed as “net profits,” pursuant to Article 129(7) of the nullity of the second marriage is not determinative of petitioner
Family Code. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim being deprived Donato’s guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy.
of his right to due process. Furthermore, it was petitioner’s second wife, the herein private
respondent Abayan who filed the complaint for annulment of
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto
the second marriage on the ground that her consent was Pursuant to the doctrine discussed in Landicho vs. Relova,
obtained through deceit. petitioner Donato cannot apply the rule on prejudicial
questions since a case for annulment of marriage can be
The doctrine elucidated upon by the case of Landicho vs. considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case
Relova may be applied to the present case. Said case states against the accused only if it is proved that the petitioner’s
that: consent to such marriage was obtained by means of duress,
violence and intimidation in order to establish that his act in the
The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages subsequent marriage was an involuntary one and as such the
entered into by the accused in a bigamy case does not mean same cannot be the basis for conviction. The preceding
that “prejudicial questions” are automatically raised in civil elements do not exist in the case at bar.
actions as to warrant the suspension of the case. In order that
the case of annulment of marriage be considered a prejudicial Obviously, petitioner merely raised the issue of prejudicial
question to the bigamy case against the accused, it must be question to evade the prosecution of the criminal case.
shown that the petitioner’s consent to such marriage must be
the one that was obtained by means of duress, force and Accordingly, there being no prejudicial question shown to exit
intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must the order of denial issued by the respondent judge dated April
be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the 14, 1980 should be sustained.
crime of bigamy.
8. Is there a need for that the party alleged to be
The situation in the present case is markedly different. At the psychologically incapacitated has been personally examined
time the petitioner was indicted for bigamy on February 27, by a physician or psychologist?
1963, the fact that two marriage ceremonies had been
contracted appeared to be indisputable. And it was the second The Supreme Court held that, although there is no
spouse, not the petitioner who filed the action for nullity on the requirement that a party to be declared psychologically
ground of force, threats and intimidation. incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or
psychologist, there is a need to prove the psychological
Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the
themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the person alleging such disorder. (Bier v. Bier, G.R. No. 173294,
judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of 27 February 2008)
the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long
as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that there is no
marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be
marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a
marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage
based psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the
totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto
of psychological incapacity. (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. marriage. (Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019,
136490, October 19 2000) January 04, 1995)

Correspondingly, the presentation of expert proof presupposes Proving that a spouse failed to meet his or her responsibility
a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the and duty as a married person is not enough; it is essential that
psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, he or she must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to
severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. some psychological illness.
(Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, 13 February 2009)
(Yambao v. Republic, G.R. No. 184063, January 24, 2011)

11. My husband started showing signs of being

9. When does the action or defense for declaration of psychologically incapacitated about 4 years ago.
nullity prescribe? However, we had been married for 15 years, and all that
time, he was the perfect husband. Can I use the ground of
The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of psychological incapacity in my petition for nullity of my
marriage does not prescribe, regardless of whether or not the marriage?
marriage was celebrated before or after the effectivity of the
Family Code. No. The psychological incapacity must be proved to have been
existing before the marriage. If after the marriage, the ground
10. My husband wouldn’t help me in the chores around of psychological incapacity cannot be used. The Supreme
the house, saying those are a woman’s job. Can I use the Court had repeatedly pronounced that the root cause of the
ground of psychological incapacity in my petition for psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological
annulment against him? illness, with its incapacitating nature fully explained and
established by the totality of the evidence presented during the
No. It bears stressing that psychological incapacity must be trial.
more than just a “difficulty,” “refusal” or “neglect” in the
performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential 12. I have not been getting along with my wife for quite a
that the concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to while now. Can I allege psychological incapacity as a
some psychological illness existing at the time of the ground for filing an annulment case against her?
celebration of the marriage. (Marable v. Marable, G.R. No.
178741, January 17, 2011) No you cannot. What the law requires to render a marriage
void on the ground of psychological incapacity is downright
The intention of the law is to confine the meaning of incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty much less ill will.
“psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of The mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter “conflicting personalities” does not constitute psychological
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY | Soy Abeto
incapacity. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, 13
February 1997)

13. If there is any doubt in my case for nullity of my

marriage, how would the court resolve the case?

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution sets out a policy
of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic social
institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.
Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the State,
cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for
the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to
show the nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation
of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.
(Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, G.R.No. 171042, 30 June
2008)

14. What will happen to the children if the petition for

nullity of marriage has been granted on the ground of
psychological incapacity?

The children will still be considered legitimate. Children of

marriages void under Article 36 (psychological incapacity) and
under Article 53 (second marriage without delivery of legitime
to children of the first marriage) are considered legitimate, as
an exception to the general rule.