Guzman, Mark Lawrence C.

2/28/2014
4th yr Legal Management/Marriage Prof. Ramilo


PYSCHOLOICAL INCAPACITY
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted whereby any party was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage shall be
considered void. This provision produced many conflicts about the definition of what psychological
incapacity is and to what extend the law should apply. While the law does not expressly identify
concrete meanings and guidelines in determining the incapacity, our jurisprudence lays down
elements in qualifying such.

RP vs CA & Molina Marcos vs Marcos Tsoi vs CA & Tsoi

- Mere difficulty or outright
refusal to perform marital
obligation, conflicting
personalities and irreconcilable
differences does NOT amount
to psychological incapacity.

-Psychological incapacity is
characterized by:

a.) juridical antecedence it
should be proven that the
incapacity already exists prior
or at the time of celebration of
the marriage, even if the
manifestations are only
perceivable afterwards.

b.) gravity it should be grave
enough to be considered as a
serious personality disorder,
that the person was not able to
understand the obligations of
marriage he/she will assume.

c.) incurability it should be
impossible to be cured later or
during the existence of the
marriage.

- The totality of evidence
should be sufficient to establish
the existence of psychological
incapacity.


- Senseless and stubborn
refusal by a spouse to have a
sexual intercourse amounts to
psychological incapacity. Such
amounts to failure to perform
the essential obligation of
marriage which to render love
and procreate.


One thing common among the cases above is that the court stressed enough that mere
differences in personality, mood swings, misunderstanding and quarrels common to people in
relationship should not be construed as manifestation of psychological incapacity. The gravity should
always be considered - if it is enough to make the person so incapable of fully understanding and
consequently performing the obligations attached to the marriage life. Based on this premised is why
the court in ruling such cases is reasonably strict with the sufficiency of evidence- that the same
should be able to establish the claims with medical examinations and expert testimonies. Another
important element in consideration among the cases is the express requirement of the law that the
incapacity should be present at the time of celebration of the marriage. This is to ensure that the
incapacity is isolated and standing as it is from the marriage and not just brought by subsequent
events like unemployment, quarrels, and the likes. Furthermore, it can be deducted from the rulings
of that in annulment of marriage based on the ground of psychological incapacity; there can never
be a fast and hard rule. It is ruled based on the peculiarity of the situation, with proper consideration
of the elements laid down by the milestone cases illustrated above.
The wordings of the law cannot encompass all the possible nature of psychological
incapacity; which is why there has been important deliberation about the subject and the important
controlling principles were laid down by jurisprudence. One thing that is very evident though is how
our legal system is true to its intent to uphold the sanctity of marriage, that all doubts in cases
involving the same should be resolved in favor of its preservation.


CASES SUMMARY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
vs
COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, respondents.
Facts:
Roridel Molina filed a case for annulment of marriage to Reynaldo Molina on August 16,
1990. The couple is married on April 14, 1985 in San Agustin Church, Manila and later on conceived
a son. After a year, husband Reynaldo was said to show signs of immaturity and irresponsibility by
spending more time with friends, spending money unnecessarily, and depending to his parents for
aids all resulting to quarrels between the couple. In Feb 1986 their relationship was estranged,
with Roridel taking over as the breadwinner of the family and later on left to leave with her parents,
and Reynaldo abandoning his wife and son since then. Thus, Roridel initiated the action in belief the
acts and behavior of his husband Reynaldo constitutes psychological incapacity due to his failure to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage. The lower court grants the annulment with the
decision appealed on the Court of Appeals which affirmed such decision, hence the petition to the
Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the spouses (husband) acts and behaviors constitute psychological
incapacity in his, part sufficient to be used as ground for the annulment of the marriage.
Ruling:
No, there is the no showing in the case that there is psychological incapacity in the part of
husband to perform his marital obligations. What appears is to be more of a difficulty, or an outright
refusal or neglect in the performance of such obligations. Mere conflicting personalities and
irreconcilable differences do not amount to incapability to perform duties as married persons; it is
essential they must be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness. More importantly, it
cannot be established that the claimed illness of Reynaldo is already present prior to or at the time of
the celebration of marriage an important element to constitute psychological incapacity.

BRENDA B. MARCOS, petitioner, vs. WILSON G. MARCOS,respondent.
Facts:
This a case of petition for Certiorari assailing the decision of Court of Appeals which declared
the marriage of petitioner Brenda Marcos and respondent Wilson Marcos as void ab initio in the
grounds of psychological incapacity. The couple was married twice on September 6, 1982 and May
8, 1983 and produced 5 children. Husband is ex member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
later on became part of the Presidential Security Command in Malacanang during the Marcos
Regime, while wife was former part of the Philippine Air Force. Husband left the military service and
engaged to different businesses ventures that did not prosper, causing wife to urge him to look for
work to provide for the family instead of her standing as the breadwinner. This unemployment
caused quarrels, physical harm to the children and eventually led the couple to live separately.
The wife submitted herself to medical examinations where she was diagnosed with physical
injuries, while the children was diagnosed by a social worker with findings that they experienced
cruelty and abused with their father.
Issue:
Whether or not the acts of abuse and cruelty of respondent Wilson towards his wife and son
amount to psychological incapacity which should suffice as a ground for the annulment of the
marriage.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court laid down the three elements that would constitute psychological
incapacity as decided in the case of Santos vs Court of Appeals, which are:
a.) juridical antecedence it should be proven that the incapacity already exists prior or at the time
of celebration of the marriage, even if the manifestations are only perceivable afterwards.
b.) gravity it should be grave enough to be considered as a serious personality disorder, that the
person was not able to understand the obligations of marriage he/she will assume.
c.) incurability it should be impossible to be cured later or during the existence of the marriage.
The court affirmed the decision of the lower courts of not declaring marriage void as the
aforementioned requirements are not duly established. More importantly, it finds that the totality of
the evidence presented by the petitioner, comprised of the expert testimonies and medical
examinations, was not enough to sustain a psychological incapacity of the respondent.

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.
Facts:
A Petition assailing the annulment of marriage caused by wife against his husband granted
by Regional Trial Court and decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. On May 22, 1988, plaintiff
married defendant in Manila. As claimed by the plaintiff, no sexual intercourse took place during their
first night as couple, which is naturally expected from people newlywed. This extended up to the
forth night. Despite effort to have a private honeymoon and eventually sleeping on the same bed for
almost a year, no sexual intercourse happened allegedly due to the husbands constant avoidance.
The couple decided to submit to medical examinations which found that both are healthy and
capable, with the wife still virgin and able to conceive and the husband capable of erection. The wife
being dissatisfied with the situation initiated the action for the annulment with claims that his
husband is a closeted homosexual who married her to secure his image as a man. The husband,
though admitting that no sexual intercourse ever took place, disfavors the annulment because he
loves his wife and believes that their marriage is still young and their difference is still reconcilable.
He also states that he has made efforts to initiate affection to his wife, but the latter was refusing and
one time seems to be afraid with the act.
Issue:
Whether or not the refusal of respondent to have sexual intercourse to his wife amounts to
psychological incapacity as contemplated by the law as a valid ground in the annulment of marriage.
Ruling:
The fact that it is the wife who initiated the action bars the claim of the husband that the
former is refusing his attempt to have a sexual intercourse between them. There is also nothing in
the records that he tried to discover what he alleges as problem with his wife and her constant
refusal. According to the Supreme Court, the constant refusal to have a sexual intercourse is a
manifestation of incapacity of a person to assume the basic obligations of the marital life, which part
of is to the render love affection and to procreate children. Furthermore, there is nothing in the
evidence that shows that the lack of sexual intercourse between the two is caused by physical
condition or the likes. The senseless and stubborn refusal of the husband can be considered as a
sign of psychological incapacity. Therefore, the Court affirmed the decision for the nullity of the
marriage.