Art.

36 of Family Code Psychological Incapacity

Arguments for
Case Title Psychological SC Held SC Ruling
Incapacity

- The Prolonged Refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or

her spouse is considered a sign of Psychological Incapacity.

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA Refusal to have sexual - One of the essential marital obligations under the Family
1 (GR. 119190) intercourse. Granted Code is to procreate children through sexual cooperation.
Jan. 16, 1997 The senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to
fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to
Psychological Incapacity.

- No showing that Wilsons defects were already present at the inception of

the marriage or that they are. incurable.

- There is no requirement that the party should be personally

Intermittently drunk examined by a physician or psychologist as condition sine
Failed to give moral and qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on
Marcos vs. Marcos financial support psychological incapacity, Such psychological incapacity
Denied claims
2 (GR. 136490) Inflict physical harm to of Brenda
must be established by the totality of the evidence
Oct. 19, 2000 presented during the trial.
Breda and their Children.
No psychological - The behavior of Wilson can be attributed to the fact that he lost his job and
evaluation was not gainfully employed for a period of more than 6 years. It was during
this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and
moral support, and even left the family home. Thus his alleged
Psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the inception
of the marriage.
 - Art. 36 of the FC refers to a serious psychological illness affecting the party
even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities
of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.

- The evidence presented by Brenda refers only to grounds for legal

separation.

- Brenda failed to comply with the guidelines imposed in the Molina Case.

- Erlinda failed to comply with guideline no. 2 of the Molina

Doctrine, which requires that the root cause of
Psychological Incapacity must be medically, or clinically
A fugitive from justice identified and sufficiently proven by experts.
Prolonged abandonment or
Republic vs. Dagdag
absences - No psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged
3 (GR. 109975) Habitual alcoholic
DENIED
psychological incapacity of her husband Avelino.
Feb. 9, 2001 Emotionally immature
No psychiatrist or medical - The allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice was not
doctor testified sufficiently proven. In fact, the crime for which he was arrested
was not even alleged.

Alfonso: The filing by Leni of
a series charges against him
are proof of her Psychological
Incapacity with the essential
obligations of marriage
Choa vs. Choa
because instead of protecting
4 (GR. 143376) the name and integrity of her
Denied
Nov. 26, 2002 husband Alfonso as the father
- The documents presented by Alfonso during the trial do not in any way
show that the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife. The evidence
presented merely established the prosecution of the cases against him.
- Alfonso lacks proof that the psychological incapacity was grave enough to
bring about the disability of the party to assume essential obligations of
marriage. He forgot that fact that there are two children who were born
during his union with Brenda.

of her children, she acted in - Alfonsos witness, Dr. Gauzon, failed to identify and prove the root cause of
the contrary. Lenis the alleged psychological incapacity. His testimony did not show that
personality; (a.) lacks attention Brendas incapacity was medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
to their children, (b) she is
 immature; and (c.) she lacks
intention of procreative
sexuality.

Leni: Filed a Motion to

Dismissed (Demurrer to
evidence

Diana was a disorganized

housekeeper. She would go to
her sisters house or would
play tennis the whole day.
She withdrew herself and
refused to speak to her
husband (Tadeo) when she
Barcelona vs. CA had several miscarriages.
5 (GR. 130087)
When she was 5 months
Sept. 24, 2003 pregnant, he requested Tadeo
to temporarily leave their
conjugal dwelling. She wanted
to feel a little freedom from her
marital authority and
influences. She was even
compelled to leave the
conjugal dwelling and reside in
a condominium in Greenhills.
- The new rules providing that Expert opinion need not be alleged in the
petition is that there is no need to allege the root cause of Psychological
Incapacity.
- Since the new rules do not require the petition to allege expert opinion on
REMANDED the Psychological Incapacity, it follows that there is also no need to allege in
the issue of the petition the root cause of Psychological Incapacity.
Psychological
Incapacity - What the new Rules require the petition to allege the physical
back to the manifestations indicative of Psychological Incapacity.
trial court.
- The SC ruled on the issue on whether or not there is a Cause of Action in
which, under the 2nd petition, there is because it states the legal right of
Tadeo, the correlative right of Diana, and the act or omission of Diana in
violation of a legal right.
 - Sharons sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not
Blatant Infidelity by themselves constitute Psychological Incapacity under the
Lack of remorse and even Family Code. Neither also her emotional immaturity and
bringing her 2 children with irresponsibility.
her paramour to the
Dedel vs. CA conjugal home, - It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of
disordered personality which make SHARON completely
6 (GR. 151867) Irresponsible wife and DENIED
unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital
Jan. 29, 2004 immature mother
state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity or sexual
Suffered from Anti-Social
promiscuity.
Personality Disorder (w/
Psy. Report of Expert
- The circumstances/arguments relied upon by Petitioner
Witness
David are grounds for legal separation.

- Toshios act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never

alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of Psychological Incapacity.

- Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual medical

examination, it would have greatly helped Lolitas case had
Abandonment she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified
his illness.
Immaturity
Republic vs. Quintero- No Psychological report - The SC cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact that
Hamano Toshio abandoned his family immediate after the celebration of the
7 (GR. 149498)
DENIED marriage. It is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so
Note: due to some psychological, not physical, illness.
May 20, 2004 This is a mixed marriage
(Japanse spouse and - In proving psychological incapacity, the SC find no distinction
between and alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. The SC cannot be
Filipino Spouse) lenient in the application of the rules merely because the spouse
alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign
national. The medical and clinical rules to determine psychological
incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior
in general. Hence, the norms used for determining psychological
incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality.
 - The inadequacies of Juanita which led Manuel to file a case
against her do not amount to psychological incapacity to comply
with the essential marital obligations.

- The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs

to the plaintiff (Manuel). Any doubt should be resolved in
favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity.
Irritable
Disrespectful - Manuel failed to prove that his wife (Juanita) lack of respect for
Siayngco vs. Siayngco Domineering him, her jealousies and obsession with cleanliness, her outbursts
and her controlling nature, and her inability to endear herself to
8 (GR. 158896) Oct. 27, Selfish Attitude Denied his parents are grave psychological maladies that paralyze her
2004
Narcissistic from occupying with the essential obligations of marriage.
Personality Disorder - The psychological report presented by Dr. Garcia clearly shows
that the root cause of Juanitas behavior is traceable from her
experiences during the marriage.

- An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not a null and void

marriage. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological
incapacity.
 - Felys hot-temper, nagging, and extravagance; her abandonment
of Crasus; her marriage to Stephen Micklus; and even her
flaunting of her American family and her American surname do
not satisfactorily established psychological or mental defect that
is serious or grave, an which has been in existence at the time of
celebration of the marriage and is incurable.

- The totality of evidence presented during trial by Crasus must

still prove the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability of
the alleged psychological incapacity.

- Art. 36 FC contemplated downright incapacity or inability to take

Hot-temper cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations; not a
Naggy
Republic vs. Iyoy (GR. mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of
Extravagant the errant spouse.
9 152577) Sept. 21,
Abandonment
Denied
2005 - Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional
Sexual Infidelity
Bigamy immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual
alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by
themselves, do not warrant psychological incapacity under Art.
36, FC.

- Art. 26, par. 2 of FC cannot be applied to this case because at

the time Fely obtained the divorce decree, she was still a Filipino
Citizen. Pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Art. 15
of CC, she was still bound by Philippine Laws on family rights
and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she
already living abroad. Fely could not have validly obtained a
divorce decree from Crasus.
 Schizoid & dependent and
avoidant type
Violent tendencies during
the epileptic attacks
Ferraris vs. Ferraris Abandonment & lack of
10 (GR. 162368) July 17, support DENIED - Epilepsy does not constitute Psychological Incapacity
2006 Refusal or unwillingness to
assume the essential marital
obligations
Psychological report was
not sufficient
- Res Judicata requires the concurrence of the following requisites: x x x
The action for declaration of (4) there is between the first and the second - identity of parties, of
nullity of marriage on the subject matter, and of causes of action.
ground of psychological
incapacity and the action for - The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to
ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or
declaration of nullity of whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance
marriage on the ground of of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both,
Mallon vs. Alcantara absence of marriage license the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first
constitute separate causes of case is a bar to the subsequent action.
11 (GR. 141528) Oct. 31,
action, therefore the present
DENIED
2006 case would not fall under the - Oscar Mallon forgets that he is simply invoking different grounds for the
same cause of action. In both petitions, what differs is the ground upon the
prohibition against splitting a which the cause of action is predicated. The grounds cited by Oscar splits
single cause of action nor the various aspects of the issue that holds the key to the resolution of their
would it be barred by Res marriage.
Judicata.
- A party cannot evade or avoid the application of Res Judicata by simply
varying the form of his action or adopting a different method of presenting
his case.
 Declaration of nullity of
marriage between Orlando
and Merope on the ground
bigamous marriage.
- Felicitas personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of
marriage cannot be ascertained because of the absence of the
Amor-Catalan vs. CA Merope had a prior subsisting
REMANDED divorce decree and the foreign law allowing it.
marriage with Eusebio before
12 (GR. 167101) Feb. 6,
she got married to Orlando
to the trial
2007 court - A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our
jurisdiction, provided such degree is valid according to the
The bigamous marriage of
national law of the foreigner
Orlando and Merope brought
embarrassment to her
(Felicitas Amor-Catalan) and
her children.
Filipinas treated Orlando
with contempt and without
love and respect - Orlando relies on the findings of Dr. Villegas, however, Dr.
Villegas failed to link Filipinas personality disorder to her
She ridiculed him instead of conclusion that Filipinas is psychologically incapacitated to
giving him encouragement perform her obligations as wife and mother. Psychological
incapacity must be more than just as difficulty, a refusal or, a
Interference in the operation neglect in the performance of some marital obligations.
Tongol vs. Tongol (GR. of Orlandos business after
13 157610) Oct. 19, 2007 it became successful and
DENIED
- Dr. Villegas failed to explain if the personality disorder of
was able to embark another Filipinas is grave enough to bring about her disability to assume
business venture the essential obligations of marriage.

Her bad attitude - Psychological incapacity under Art. 36, FC must be relevant to
the assumption of marriage obligations like the exercise of a
She quarreled with him profession or employment of job.
causing him
embarrassment.
 Lynette realized that her husband
Martini was a Mamas Boy
because every time she conversed
with him, he always mentioned his
mother and his family.

Republic vs. Lynette learned that Martini

Cabantug-Baguio (GR. declared in his employment records
14 171042) June 30,
that he was single and named his DENIED - Being a Mamas Boy is not a ground for psychological incapacity.
mother as principle allottee.
2008
Dr. Gerong finds that Martini shows
immature personality disorder,
dependency patterns, and self-
centered motives

With Psychological Report

Infidelity
Dimayuga-Laurena vs. Neglect of Familh
Irresponsible
15 CA (GR. 159220) Sept. Insensitive
DENIED -
22, 2008 Tendency to be a Bachelor
With Psychological Report

De Dios Carlos vs.

16 Sandoval (GR. -
179922) Dec. 16, 2008
 Ngo Te vs. Yu Te (GR.
17 161793) Feb. 13, 2009
-

So vs. Valera (GR.

18 150677) June 5, 2009
-

Baccay vs. Baccay (GR.

19 173138) Dec. 1, 2010
-

Aurelio vs. Aurelio

20 (GR. 175367) June 6, -
2011
 Kalaw vs. Fernandez
21 (GR. 166357) Sept. 19, -
2011

RESOLUTION: Kalaw
22 vs. Fernandez Jan. 14, -
2015

Pana vs. Heirs of Jose

23 Juanite, Sr. (GR. -
164201) Dec. 10, 2012

Go-Bangayan vs.
24 Bangayan, Jr. (GR. -
201061 Jul. 3, 2013
 Republic vs. De Gracia
25 (GR. 171557) Feb. 12, -
2014

Matudan vs. Republic

26 (GR. 203286) Nov. 14, -
2016

Art. 36 of the Family Code Psychological Incapacity:

- A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychological incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall be likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest
inly after its solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order 227)

Notes:
- Such incapacity may not have been known by the other party,
- Such incapacity might manifest later during the marriage, which is the reason for the marital problem.
- Such incapacity is already present at the time of marriage, even thought it may manifested only later during marriage
Psychological Incapacity
The condition of a person who does not have the mind, will, and the heart for the performance of the marriage
obligations.
A mental and physiological incapacity of the spouse to comply with the essential marital obligation of marriage.

Some manifestation:
a. Refusal of one spouse to live, dwell and cohabit with the other after marriage, without any fault at all from the
aggrieved spouse.
b. Deliberate refusal to give support to the other spouse, or their common children.
c. When the marriage is unbearable due to the compulsive gambling, alcoholism, drug addiction or violent jealousy of
the respondent spouse.

Some essential marital obligations stated in the family code (failure to comply may constitutes Psy. Incapacity):
1. To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the
basic end of marriage;
2. To live together one roof (Art. 68) for togetherness spells the unity in marriage;
3. To observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68) for love, sexual comfort, and loyalty to one another are basic
postulates of marriage;
4. To render mutual help and support (Art. 68) for assistance in necessities, both temporal and spiritual, is essential to
sustain the marriage;
5. To jointly support the family (Art. 70) because the spouses are joint administrator in the partnership;
6. Not to commit acts which will bring danger, dishonor or injury to each other or to the family (Art. 72) for the safety
and security of the family at all times is a primordial duty of the spouses.

Effects of Void Marriage based on Psychological Incapacity:

 - Children are legitimate
- Property Regime is Co-Ownership

Safeguards against Abuse in Utilizing Psychological Incapacity as a Ground for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage:
- The court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to
take care the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. (Art. 48, FC)
- The Judge must be guided by Experience, the findings of experts and researches in psychological disciplines, and by
decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the
provision was taken from the Canon Law.
- Psychological incapacity refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It is a malady a grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of
the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. (Marital Obligations those provided under Art. 68-71, 220, 221, & 225
of the Family Code)
-