A Synthesis on Cases under Article 36 of the Family Code

Article 36 of the Family Code states that “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.”

Psychological Incapacity

The concept of “Psychological Incapacity “is a condition of a person who does not have the mind, will,
and heart for the performance of marriage obligation (Veloso, 1988). Furthermore, it contemplates
“downright incapacity on inability to take cognizance of and assume the basic marital obligation
(Republic v. Encelan, 2013). It should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes
a party to be truly cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage which include mutual obligations to live together, observe
love, respect, fidelity, and to render help and support (Republic v. Iyoy, 2005). As a ground for the
declaration of nullity of a marriage, it must be characterized by juridical antecedence, gravity, and
incurability (Villalon, op. cit.).

As stated in Santos v. CA case, “the use of the phrase ‘psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of the
Code has not been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise mentioned by
some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances (cited in
Fr. Artemio Baluma’s “Void and Voidable Marriages in the Family Code and their Parallels in Canon Law,”
quoting from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder by the American Psychiatric
Association; Edward Hudson’s “Handbook II for Marriage Nullity Cases”). Article 36 of the Family Code
cannot be taken and construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts
in our law on marriages. Thus correlated, “psychological incapacity” should refer to 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 which, as so
expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe
love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.

Psychological Incapacity as ground to render the marriage void need not necessarily be manifested
before or during the marriage although it is a basic requirement that the psychological defect be existing
during the marriage. When shall Psychological Incapacity become a ground to nullify a marriage, and
when is it not?

The Cases

In the case of Santos v. CA (G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995), Julia’s (wife respondent) failure to return
home from the US and none-communication of more than five years with Leouel (husband petitioner) 
does not constitute Psychological Incapacity as it is not characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability, as opined by Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila (Branch I). Article 36 of the Family
Code cannot be taken and construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction with, existing
precepts in our law on marriages. Thus correlated, “psychological incapacity” should refer to 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 which, as

Page 1 of 6
so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe
love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. 

In the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. Gina Lao-Tshoi ( G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997 ), Chi’s (husband
petitioner) protracted refusal to have sexual intercourse with her wife constitute a ground for
annulment by reason of psychological incapacity. One of the essential marital obligations under the
Family Code is "To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children
through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage”, as specifically cited in the Catholic Doctrine on
the Ends of marriage. Constant non- fulfillment of this obligation clearly demonstrates an ‘utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage’ within the meaning of Article
36 of the Family Code.

In the landmark case of Republic v. CA, Molina (G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 ), the marriage
remained valid owing to antecedence of the psychological incapacity in the part of Reynaldo (husband
respondent). In Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals, the Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug,
ruled that "psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (nor physical) incapacity . . .
and that (t)here is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
'psychological incapacity' 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 psychologic
condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated." Psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

On the other hand, in the present case, there is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken of
is an incapacity. It appears to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the
performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting
personalities" doesn’t constitute psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties
failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons. It is essential that they must be
shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical) illness.

The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not get along with
each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem. In the case of Reynaldo, there is
no showing that his alleged personality traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the
time of marriage celebration. 
          
Moreover, the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code
are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
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.

Page 2 of 6
 4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against every one of the same sex.
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 same Code in
regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be
stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
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.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear
as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his
agreement or opposition to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting
attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the
case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court.

In the case of Marcos v. Marcos (G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000) , the circumstances and allegations
laid down by the petitioner wife, does not constitute Psychological Incapacity, in the case at bar, the
Court that for psychological incapacity to be a ground for nullity of marriage, both parties or one of
them, must be as supported by evidence to be shown as mentally and physically ill so as to impede both
or one of the parties to fully exercise his/her marital obligations. He totality of the evidence also is not
enough in this case as the allegation may be brought about by the circumstances noting that Wilson was
not able to look for a good work, thus, was unable to provide for his family which caused him to be
constantly drunk and occasionally left their home. There is no evidence to show that his is an incurable
condition.

In the case of Republic v. Hamano (G.R. No. 149498 May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 735), the CA erred in
holding that Lolita (wife petitioner) was able to prove the psychological incapacity of Toshio (husband
respondent) to perform his marital obligations.   The court finds that the totality of evidence presented
fell short of proving that Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities.
Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible, but it was never alleged nor proven to be
due to some kind of psychological illness. After respondent testified on how Toshio abandoned his
family, no other evidence was presented showing that his behavior was caused by a psychological
disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual medical examination, it would have greatly
helped respondent’s case had she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified his illness.
This could have been done through an expert witness. As we ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove
that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must
be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness. There was no
proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the
personality structure that effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the
obligations essential to marriage. 

In the case of Buenaventura v. CA (G.R. Nos. 27358/127449, March 31, 2005 ), the regional trial court’s
decision of declaring the marriage null and void ab initio is valid by Noel’s (husband petitioner)
admission that he was under heavy parental pressure to marry and that because of pride he married

Page 3 of 6
defendant-appellee. But in truth, he was not ready for marriage and he did everything to get out of it--
deliberately. In ruling that Noel was psychologically incapable of fulfilling his marital responsibilities, but,
CA and RTC erred in awarding moral damages. Psychological incapacity is beyond control of the party
because of innate incapability and not willful. Therefore, there should be no award for moral damages.

In the case of Antonio v. Reyes (G.R. No. 155880, March 10, 2006 )  , Leonilo (husband petitioner) alleged
psychological incapacity towards his wife Marie, claiming that respondent persistently lied about
herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or
things. In support of his petition, petitioner presented a psychiatrist, and a clinical psychologist, who
stated, based on the tests they conducted, that petitioner was essentially a normal, introspective, shy
and conservative type of person. On the other hand, they observed that respondent’s persistent and
constant lying to petitioner was abnormal or pathological. It undermined the basic relationship that
should be based on love, trust and respect. They further asserted that respondent’s extreme jealousy
was also pathological. It reached the point of paranoia since there was no actual basis for her to suspect
that petitioner was having an affair with another woman. They concluded based on the foregoing that
respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations. The nullity of
the marriage was thereby declared null and void by the RTC, supported by the Metropolitan Tribunal of
the Archdiocese of Manila. Although, the Court of Appeals nevertheless held that the totality of the
evidence presented was insufficient, hence the issue of the case. The Supreme Court ruled that the CA
erred in its ruling, and that the present case sufficiently satisfies the guidelines in Molina Doctrine.
         
In the case of Edward Kenneth Ngo-Te v. Rowena Te (G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009 ), the issue
centered on whether the expert opinion of the psychologist should be admitted despite the guidelines
established in the landmark case of Molina. It was ruled that admittedly, the SC may have
inappropriately imposed a set of rigid rules in ascertaining Psychological Incapacity in the Molina case.
So much so that the subsequent cases after Molina were ruled accordingly to the doctrine set therein.
And that there is not much regard for the law’s clear intention that each case is to be treated
differently, as “courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the
findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.”
The SC is not abandoning the Molina guidelines, it merely reemphasized that there is need to emphasize
other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity
under Article 36 such as in the case at bar. The principle that each case must be judged, not based on  a
priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. The SC then ruled
that the marriage of Kenneth and Rowena is null and void due to both parties’ psychological disorder as
evidenced by the finding of the expert psychologist. Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and
incurable psychological incapacity. Kenneth cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living
together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to make
everyday decisions without advice from others. He is too dependent on others. Rowena cannot perform
the essential marital obligations as well due to her intolerance and impulsiveness.
  
In the case of Aurelio v. Aurelio (G.R. No. 175367, June 6, 2011), the petition for the declaration of nullity
of marriage observed the requirements in Republic v. CA or better known as the Molina Doctrine. The
root cause of psychological incapacity, juridical antecedence and incurability were all alleged in the
petition. The petition included the family backgrounds of both spouses and was the root causes of their
psychological incapacity. An expert also affirmed the same as the root causes. Moreover, the illnesses of
both spouses were also of such grave nature to the point that there was a disability for them to assume
the essential obligations of marriage, making the marriage of Danilo (husband petitioner), and Corazon
(wife respondent) null and void. The psychologist reported that respondent suffers from Histrionic

Page 4 of 6
Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Features. Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers from
Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder.
                      
In the case of Tan-Andal vs Andal (G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021), On appeal, the Supreme Court took
the opportunity to revisit the Molina Guidelines and the other nullity cases decided by the Supreme
Court after Molina. In the present case, the marriage of Rosana (wife petitioner) and Mario (husband
respondent) is declared null and void, owing to Dr. Garcia’s expert testimony, which is given due weight.
However, the Supreme Court declared, among others, that in psychological incapacity cases, expert
testimony is not a requirement. From this case, the Supreme Court’s new set of guidelines in
determining the existence of psychological incapacity, which is mirroring the Molina Doctrine excluding
of its last guideline.
1. The burden of proof in proving psychological incapacity is still on the plaintiff. The Supreme
Court however clarified that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and
convincing evidence which is more than preponderant evidence (ordinary civil cases) but less
than proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases).
2. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be
proven through expert testimony.
3. Incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; incurable as to the partner.
4. As to gravity, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic
cause.
5. Juridical antecedence.
6. Essential marital obligations are not limited to those between spouses. Hence, those covered 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 same Code about parents and their children.
7. The decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the
Philippines have persuasive effect on nullity cases pending before secular courts.

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.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that in voiding ill-equipped marriages, courts are not really
violating the inviolability of marriage as a social institution which is enshrined in no less than the
Constitution. Courts should not hesitate to declare such marriages void solely for the sake of their
permanence when, paradoxically, doing so destroyed the sanctity afforded to marriage. In declaring ill-
equipped marriages as void ab initio, the courts assiduously defend and promote the sanctity of
marriage as an inviolable social institution. The foundation of our society is thereby made all the
stronger.

Inference
The cases above depicted similarities and differences in facts all aligning to Psychological Incapacity, as a
ground to nullify marriage. The interpretations of the courts in ruling the respective cases were critical
on a case-to-case basis given that no specific definition of Psychological Incapacity was provided by the
constitution. However, the Molina Doctrine later paved way for a clearer interpretation although rigid.
Yes, it was emphasized that the interpretation and the ruling of any case must not alone be based on the
case, following the Moline Doctrine or the provision of the Article 36 of the constitution, it must
consider in parallel the Canon Law and other related laws, thus, the new set of guidelines in the Andal v.

Page 5 of 6
Andal case. In the end, the cases must be interpreted accordingly in a case-to-case basis inn consonance
with the underlying guidelines provided by the constitution.

Page 6 of 6