G.R. No.

196359 May 11, 2021

Facts:
Rosanna first met Mario in 1975 through Legion of Mary at the Saints Peter and Paul Parish in
Makati. They wrote each other letters until 1978, when they lost contact with each other. They finally
reconnected in 1995 when Mario sought out Rosanna through their childhood friends, asked her out
for a date, and eventually proposed marriage to her. Rosanna agreed to marry him in December that
year.

While they were together, Rosanna noticed that there were times when Mario "would be
unaccounted for a whole night or an entire day.'' When asked where he went, Mario would allegedly
say that he was working. In July 1995, Mario finally left for Italy, promising Rosanna that he would be
back by November for their December wedding. However, Mario was back by September, barely two
months after he had left. It turned out that Mario had quit his job.

After Mario's return, Rosanna noticed that Mario always went out at night and would come
back home at dawn, either alone or with his friends. He also had difficulty in managing his finances,
with his siblings allegedly calling Rosanna and telling her that their brother was financially incapable
of supporting a family. However, Rosanna was already deeply in love with Mario, so she told his
sisters that she accepted Mario for who he was. Nevertheless, there were times when Mario would
allegedly be extremely irritable and moody, causing Rosanna to have second thoughts about
marrying him. However, by November 1995, Rosanna was already pregnant with their child. The
parties eventually married on December 16, 1995.

Mario, however, continued with his "emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, irritability, and
psychological imbalance." He would leave their house for several days without informing Rosanna of
his whereabouts. Rosanna confronted Mario about his behavior. To Rosanna's shock, Mario admitted
that he was using marijuana, although he claimed that he was not addicted and that he could stop
anytime. He then promised to stop using it. Not keeping his promise, Mario continued with his drug
use.

After giving birth to their child, Ma. Samantha, Mario showed symptoms of paranoia. He
thought everyone was out to attack him and, at times, would hide Ma. Samantha from those he
thought were out to hurt them. Mario would also take large cash advances from Design and
Construction Matrix every week. Rosanna only learned of Mario's numerous cash advances when an
accounting personnel informed her that the firm could no longer pay the construction workers'
salaries.

Rosanna eventually got tired of Mario. But after pleas and promises to change himself,
Rosanna would still forgive him, yet, he still has the same "emotional immaturity, irresponsibility,
irritability, and psychological imbalance". Due to his drug addiction, he has been confined to a drug
rehabilitation facility, a couple of times, with non-compliance to treatment and bouts of aggressive
behavior towards Rosanna.

These events, according to Rosanna, showed Mario's psychological incapacity to comply with
his essential marital obligations to her. Rosanna contended that Mario's drug use was the
manifestation of a grave personality disorder "deeply rooted within [Mario's] adaptive system. Mario's
narcissistic antisocial personality disorder, which Dr. Garcia found to be grave, with juridical
antecedence, and incurable, allegedly rendered Mario psychologically incapacitated to comply with
his essential marital obligations to Rosanna. Dr. Garcia testified that Mario's personality disorder was
grave and "deeply rooted" in his character. Dr. Garcia added that persons suffering from personality
disorders are "impermeable to any form of psychiatric therapeutic modality" because of "the presence
of denial and cognizance on the basic pathology of the person [suffering from the disorder]."

As to the juridical antecedence of Mario's personality disorder, Dr. Garcia said that Mario "does
not have enough ego strength to effectively self-regulate and face the marital task and relational
stressors" and "there were substrates in [Mario's] development which made him feel inadequate and
bitter." Dr. Garcia thus recommended that the trial court void Mario and Rosanna's marriage due to
Mario's psychological incapacity.

The trial court thus voided Mario and Rosanna's marriage. It awarded the custody of Ma.
Samantha to Rosanna, with Mario having visitation rights.

Reversing the trial court's ruling, the Court of Appeals found Dr. Garcia's psychiatric evaluation
of Mario to be "unscientific and unreliable" since she diagnosed Mario without interviewing him. The
Court of Appeals ruled that Dr. Garcia "was working on pure suppositions and second-hand
information fed to her by one side." Thus, the Court of Appeals declared Mario and Rosanna's
marriage valid and subsisting.

Issue:

Whether or not the marriage between Mario and Rosanna is void due to psychological
incapacity.

Ruling:
Yes, the marriage between Mario and Rosanna is void due to psychological incapacity.

On May 11, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that “psychological incapacity is not a medical but
a legal concept. It refers to a personal condition that prevents a spouse to comply with fundamental
marital obligations only in relation to a specific partner that may exist at the time of the marriage but
may have revealed through behavior subsequent to the ceremonies”.

This serves as the modified interpretation of Article 36 of the Family Code which provides that
a marriage is null and void if a spouse “was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage…even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.”

Before, it was in Molina where this Court laid down the guidelines for interpreting and applying
Article 36.
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
(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.
(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.
(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.
 (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

In light of the foregoing, the Supreme Court now categorically abandons the second Molina
guideline. Psychological incapacity is neither a 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.

Reading together the deliberations of the Code Committee and the Court rulings in Santos and
Molina, we hold that the psychological incapacity contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code is
incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; hence, the third Molina guideline is amended
accordingly. 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.

Given the variability and intensity of intimate human relationships, Article 36 of the Family
Code on psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage was intended to be
humane and evolved on a case-to-case basis, but resilient in its application. However, diametrically
opposed to this intent, this 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.