PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

Suazo vs Suazo

FACTS:
 Jocelyn and Angelito got married at an early age.
 They were 16 years old when they first met.
 They were gone for three days and after their parents found them
they arranged their marriage.
 They had no means to support themselves thus they lived with
Angelito’s parents after their marriage. They did not finish their
studies.
 While Jocelyn took odd jobs and worked as household help,
Angelito refused to work and was most of the time drunk.
 They had several violent quarrels and as a result Jocelyn left
Angelito sometime in 1987.
 Angelito thereafter found another woman with whom he has since
lived. They now have children.
 10 years after their separation, Jocelyn filed with the RTC a
petition to declare her marriage with Angelito null and void under
Article 36 of the Family Code.
 She claimed that Angelito was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage.
 In addition, she alleged that from the time of their marriage up
to their separation, their relationship had been marred with
bitter quarrels which caused unbearable physical and
emotional pain on her part
 The main reason for their quarrel was Angelito’s refusal to
work of his indolence and his excessive drinking which makes
him psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital
obligations.
 Such psychological incapacity started from the time of their
marriage and proves to be continuous, permanent and
incurable.
 Angelito did not answer the petition. Neither did he submit himself
to a psychological examination.
 In her testimony before the RTC, Jocelyn reiterated the allegations
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

in her petition, including the alleged incidents of physical beating

she received from Angelito, but she significantly declared that
Angelito had not treated her violently before they were married.
 Maryjane Serrano, Jocelyn’s aunt, supported her testimony.
 The psychologist testified that Angelito had chronic Anti-Social
Personality Disorder which was permanent and incurable.
 The RTC annulled their marriage, stating that the evidence and
the testimony presented by the petitioner (Jocelyn) and the
psychologist (Dr. Familiar) were sufficient to prove that there was
psychological incapacity on the part of the respondent (Angelito).
The CA, however, reversed the decision, ruling that such testimony
is insufficient to hold that the respondent was psychologically
incapable.

ISSUE: Whether there is sufficient factual basis to nullify Jocelyn and

Angelito’s marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code (can be
rephrased as ‘Whether Angelito is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations)

RULING: NO. There is no sufficient factual basis to prove that Angelito

is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations.

Both the psychologist’s testimony and the psychological report did not
conclusively show the root cause, gravity, and incurability of
Angelito’s alleged psychological condition. The psychologist derived all
her conclusions from information coming from Jocelyn whose bias for
her cause cannot be doubted. In addition, the SC found Jocelyn’s
testimony to be insufficient for she merely testified on Angelito’s
habitual drunkenness, gambling, refusal to seek employment and the
physical beatings she received from him — all of which occurred after
the marriage.

Significantly, she declared in her testimony that Angelito showed no

signs of violent behavior, assuming this to be indicative of a
personality disorder, during the courtship stage or at the earliest
stages of her relationship with him. She testified on the alleged
physical beatings after the marriage, not before or at the time of the
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

celebration of the marriage. She did not even clarify when these
beatings exactly took place — whether it was near or at the time of
celebration of the marriage or months or years after. This is a clear
evidentiary gap that materially affects her cause, as the law and its
related jurisprudence (Article 36 of the Family Code) require that the
psychological incapacity must exist at the time of the celebration of
the marriage.

Furthermore, habitual drunkenness, gambling and refusal to find a

job, while indicative of psychological incapacity, do not, by
themselves, show psychological incapacity. All these simply indicate
difficulty, neglect or mere refusal to perform marital obligations that,
as the cited jurisprudence holds, cannot be considered as grounds of
psychological incapacity in the absence of proof that these are
manifestations of an incapacity rooted in some debilitating
psychological condition or illness.

Kalaw vs Fernandez

FACTS
 Valerie (Tyrone) Kalaw and Ma. Elena (Malyn) Fernandez married
on Nov. 4, 1976 and bore four children.
 Shortly after the birth of the fourth child, Tyrone had an
extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano who gave birth to a son in
1983.
 Two years after, Malyn left the conjugal home and her four
children with Tyrone.
 Meanwhile, Tyrone lived with Jocelyn who bore him three more
children.
 In 1990, Tyrone went to the United States with Jocelyn and their
children.
 Nine years since his de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed
a petition for declaration of nullify of marriage based on Article 36
of the Family Code.
 He alleged that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform
the essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of
their marriage.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

 He claimed that her psychological incapacity was shown by her

immaturity and irresponsibility towards Tyrone and their
children during their cohabitation.
 She left the children without proper care and attention as
she played mahjong frequently.
 She left the house to party with male friends and returned
on the following day.
 She committed adultery in 1985 with a certain Benjie
whom he saw half-naked in a hotel room.
 He presented a psychologist (Dr. Gates) and a Catholic canon
law expert (Fr. Healy) to testify on Malyn’s psychological
incapacity.
 Dr. Gates explained that Malyn suffers from narcissistic
personality disorder (NPD) which may have been evident
even prior to her marriage because it is rooted in her family
background and upbringing.
 Fr. Healy concluded that Malyn was psychologically
incapacitated to perform her marital duties and
characterized her condition as grave and incurable.
 Malyn denied being psychologically incapacitated.
 While she admitted playing mahjong, she denied playing as
frequently as Tyrone alleged.
 She did not neglect her duties as mother and wife.
 She left home to escape her physically abusive husband.
 She denied the allegation of adultery.
 She contented that it was Tyrone who was suffering from
psychological incapacity, as manifested by his drug
dependence, habitual drinking, womanizing, and physical
violence.
 The RTC concluded that both parties are psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations under
the Family Code and declared their marriage void an initio. The
CA, however, reversed the ruling of the trial court because it was
not sufficiently supported by the evidence presented by the
parties.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

ISSUE: Whether Tyrone has sufficiently proved that Malyn suffers

from psychological incapacity

RULING: NO. Tyrone failed to prove that his wife suffers from
psychological incapacity.
He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who
concluded that Malyn is psychologically incapacitated, but the
conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or
behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently proven. For
one, she may have admitted that she played mahjong, but it was not
proven that she engaged in mahjong so frequently that she neglected
her duties as a mother and a wife. Also, no proof whatsoever was
presented to prove her visits to beauty salons or her frequent partying
with friends. With regard to his allegation of adultery, Tyrone
presented an alleged companion of respondent in order to prove that
respondent had affairs with other men, but the said companion only
testified that respondent appeared to be dating other men. Even
assuming that Malyn indeed had extramarital affairs, such does not
necessarily constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code.

Moreover, the facts on record showed that Malyn was not incapable of
appreciating and performing her marital and parental duties. Not once
did the children state that they were neglected by their mother. On the
contrary, the respondent made real efforts to see and take care of her
children despite her estrangement from their father. In fact, there was
no testimony whatsoever that shows abandonment and neglect of
familial duties.

Matudan vs Republic

FACTS
 Petitioner Nicolas Matudan and Marilyn Matudan were married on
Oct. 26, 197y and had four children.
 In 1985, Marilyn left to work abroad. Since then, petitioner and
children lost contact with her; she had not been seen nor heard
from again.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

 23 years later on June 20, 2008, Nicolas filed a petition declaring

his marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
 He alleged that Marilyn was psychologically incapable of fulfilling
her marital and parental obligations.
 Even before she left, Marilyn consistently neglected and failed
to provide her husband and children with the necessary
emotional and financial care, support, and sustenance.
 She was irresponsible, immature and exhibited irrational
behavior towards petitioner and their children.
 Dr. Tayag concluded that Marilyn’s psychological incapacity is
grave, permanent, and incurable and that it already existed
since her childhood years, before she got married.
 Marilyn has Narcissistic Personality Disorder with
Antisocial Traits, which is rooted on her unhealthy familial
environment during her childhood years.
 Petitioner’s consent was vilified since it was obtained by
Marilyn through misrepresentation as she concealed her
condition to him.
 The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed
the petition.
 Allegations and proof of irresponsibility, selfishness,
indifference, and abandonment do not automatically justify a
condition of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code.
 The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner’s
evidence failed to sufficiently prove Marilyn’s alleged psychological
incapacity. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether Nicolas has sufficiently proved that Marilyn has

psychological incapacity

RULING: NO. As ruled in Santos vs CA, psychological incapacity

under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. Thus, the
incapacity “must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable or carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it
must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

although the overt manifestations may emerge only after marriage;

and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved.” In connection with this,
the burden of proving psychological incapacity rests on the petitioner.

However, in the case at bar, petitioner’s evidence does not sufficiently

prove that Marilyn in psychologically incapable; he could not establish
its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. While Nicolas
complained that Marilyn was irrational, irresponsible, immature, and
self-centered, he failed to sufficiently elaborate on these allegations. In
fact, petitioner contradicted his own claims by testifying that he and
Marilyn were happily married and never had a fight; and the only
reason for filing the petition was Marilyn’s complete abandonment of
the marriage and family when she left to work abroad. Likewise, Dr.
Tayag’s findings regarding Marilyn’s psychological condition were
based on one-sided evidence, which consists only of the personal
accounts of petitioner.

Article 68 of the Family Code obligates the husband and wife “to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual
help and support.” In this case, petitioner and respondent may have
lived together, but the facts narrated by petitioner show that
respondent failed to, or could not, comply with the obligations
expected of him as a husband. He was even apathetic that petitioner
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage.

The Supreme Court also noticed respondentÊs repeated acts of

harassment towards petitioner, which show his need to intimidate and
dominate her, a classic case of coercive control*. At first, respondent
only inflicted nonphysical forms of mistreatment on petitioner by
alienating her from her family and friends due to his jealousy, and
stalking her due to his paranoia. However, his jealousy soon escalated
into physical violence when, on separate instances, he poked a gun at
his teenage cousin, and at petitioner.

*Coercive control is a form of psychological abuse, which refers to a

pattern of behavior meant to dominate a partner through different
tactics such as physical and sexual violence, threats, emotional
insults, and economic deprivation. Coercive control as a form of
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

psychological abuse or harm has been recognized in Republic Act No.

9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004.

Mallilin vs Jamesolamin and Republic

FACTS
 Robert Mallilin and Luz Jamesolamin were married on 1972 and
begot three children.
 in 1994, Robert filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of
marriage on the grounds that Luz allegedly suffered from
psychological and mental incapacity at the time of the celebration
of the marriage, unpreparedness to enter to such marital life, and
incapacity to comply with its essential obligations and
responsibilities.
 Such incapacity became even more apparent during their marriage
when Luz exhibited clear manifestations of immaturity,
irresponsibility, deficiency of independent rational judgment, and
inability to cope with the heavy and demanding parental
obligations.
 Robert disclosed that Luz was already living in California, USA and
had married an American.
 While they were still together, petitioner disclosed that Luz did
not perform her responsibilities of being a housewife such as
keeping the house in order, preparing meals, washing clothes,
and taking care of the children.
 He also stated that she dated several men and contracted loans
without his knowledge.
 He argued that the series of sexual indiscretion of Luz were
external manifestations of the psychological effect that she was
suffering within her person, which could be considered as
nymphomania or “excessive sexual hunger.”
 In addition, he presented the testimony of a psychologist.
 While the case was pending before the RTC, Robert filed a petition
for marriage annulment with the Metropolitan Tribunal of First
Instance for the Archdiocese of Manila (Metropolitan Tribunal)
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

which was granted and affirmed by the National Appellate

Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT).
 The RTC declared the marriage null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity on the part of Luz, but the CA reversed
the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether Robert sufficiently proved that Luz has psychological

incapacity

RULING: NO. The Court has repeatedly stressed that psychological

incapacity constitutes “downright incapacity or inability to take
cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations,” not merely
the refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the
errant spouse. Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically incurable
is one thing; to refuse or to be reluctant to perform one’s marital
duties is another. Other than his allegations, however, no other
convincing evidence was adduced to prove that respondent’s sexual
indiscretions were considered as nymphomania, and that it was grave,
deeply rooted, and incurable within the term of psychological
incapacity embodied in Article 36.

To stress, Robert’s testimony alone is insufficient to prove the

existence of psychological incapacity. Robert failed to prove that
respondent’s disposition of not cleaning the room, preparing their
meal, washing the clothes, and propensity for dating and receiving
different male visitors was grave, deeply rooted, and incurable within
the parameters of jurisprudence on psychological incapacity. Likewise,
the psychological report of the psychologist was insufficient to prove
the psychological incapacity of Luz. The root cause of the alleged
psychological incapacity of Luz was not medically or clinically
identified, and sufficiently proven during the trial. There was nothing
in the records that would indicate that Luz had either been
interviewed or was subjected to a psychological examination. The
finding as to her psychological incapacity was based entirely on
hearsay and the self-serving information provided by Robert.

The decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal is insufficient to prove the

psychological incapacity of Luz. The SC stated that interpretations
given by the NAMT of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by the

courts, yet it is still subject to the law on evidence. To consider church
annulments as additional grounds for annulment under Article 36
would be legislating from the bench.

Tani-Dela Fuente vs Dela Fuente

FACTS
 On June 21, 1984, Maria Teresa Tani (petitioner) and Rodolofo De
la Fuente Jr. got married and begot two children.
 While they were still sweethearts, petitioner noticed that Rodolfo
was prone to jealousy. His attitude worsened as they went on with
their marital life. His jealousy became so severe that he even
poked a gun to his 15-year-old cousin and he treated petitioner
like a sex slave who made the latter feel maltreated and molested.
 Sometime in 1986, the couple quarreled because Rodolfo
suspected that petitioner was having an affair. In the heat of their
quarrel, Rodolfo poked a gun at petitioner’s head.
 She left and never saw Roberto again after that, and supported
their children by herself.
 On June 3, 1999, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
before the RTC.
 As support to her petition, clinical psychologist, Dr. Arnulfo V.
Lopez was presented as an expert witness. However, Rodolfo did
not file any responsive pleading.
 Dr. Lopez testified that he interviewed Maria Teresa and
subjected her to psychological tests.
 He also interviewed Rodolfo’s best friend.
 He affirmed that he invited Rodolfo to be examined but he
refused.
 He diagnosed Rodolfo with paranoid personality disorder.
 On August 14, 2002, the trial court promulgated its decision
granting the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
 The Office of the Solicitor General challenged the RTC’s decision
 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

before the Court of Appeals.

 The OSG held that the evidence presented by petitioner and
Dr. Lopez was insufficient to prove Rodolfo’s alleged
psychological incapacity.
 CA reversed RTC’s decision arguing that the evidence presented by
petitioner is insufficient.
 Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner Maria Teresa’s evidence was sufficient to

prove that Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to perform his
marital obligations

RULING: YES. There was sufficient compliance with the guidelines

presented in Republic vs CA and Molina to warrant the nullity of
petitioner’s marriage with Rodolfo. Maria Teresa was able to discharge
the burden of proof that respondent suffered from psychological
incapacity.

The root cause of respondent’s paranoid personality disorder was

hereditary in nature as his own heather suffered from a similar
disorder. Dr. Lopez stated that respondent’s own psychological
disorder probably started during his late childhood years and
developed in his early adolescent years. Dr. Lopez explained that
respondent’s psychological incapacity to perform his marital
obligations was likely caused by growing up with a pathogenic
parental model.

The juridical antecedence of respondent’s psychological incapacity

was also sufficiently proven during trial. Maria Teresa attested that
she noticed respondent’s jealousy even before the marriage, and that
he would often follow her to make sure that she did not talk to anyone
or cheat on him. She believed that he would change after they got
married; however, this did not happen. Rodolfo’s jealousy and
paranoia were so extreme and severe that these caused him to poke a
gun at petitioner’s head.

The incurability and severity of respondent psychological incapacity

 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

were likewise discussed by Dr. Lopez. He vouched that a person with

paranoid personality disorder would refuse to admit that there was
something wrong and that there was a need for treatment. This was
supported by petitioner when she stated that respondent repeatedly
refused treatment. Petitioner consulted a lawyer, a priest, and a
doctor, and suggested couples counseling to respondent; however,
respondent refused all of her attempts at seeking psychological help.
Respondent also refused to be examined by Dr. Lopez.