Dear PAO,
I was told that there are three important matters that must be proven in order to establish psychological incapacity as a ground to declare a marriage null and void. I cannot recall exactly these three important matters, but I hope to be enlightened with them for purposes of evaluating the merits of my desire to file the appropriate case necessary to nullify my marriage.
Tanya
Dear Tanya,
You are correct when you mentioned that psychological incapacity is one of the grounds or legal bases for declaring a marriage null and void. In relation to this, Article 36 of Executive Order 209, otherwise known as the “Family Code of the Philippines,” as amended, reads:
“Article. 36. 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.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
Pertinent to the foregoing, in a line of cases, it was held that in order to prove the presence of psychological incapacity as a ground to declare a marriage null and void, there are three main criteria that must be established, viz: gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence.
In the recent case of Halog v. Halog (GR 231695, Oct. 6, 2021) penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the three main criteria, i.e. gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence, are explained:
“As for the three (3) main criteria for psychological incapacity — gravity, incurability and juridical antecedence, Tan-Andal set new parameters in appreciating these elements. As stated, ‘gravity’ still has to be established, if only to preclude spouses from invoking mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts as ground for nullity. Meanwhile, ‘incurability,’ too, should be understood in the legal sense. So long as couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable breakdown of the marriage, the psychological incapacity of a spouse or both spouses is deemed ‘incurable.’ Finally, ‘juridical antecedence’ or the existence of the condition prior to the celebration of marriage, is a statutory requirement which must be proven by the spouse alleging psychological incapacity.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In connection with the aforementioned important requirements, the much recent case of Clavecilla v. Clavecilla (GR 228127, March 6, 2023) penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, further elucidates the previously mentioned requisites as follows:
“In light of the Court’s fundamental paradigm shift in viewing psychological incapacity as a purely legal, rather than a medical concept, the understanding of the requisites in determining psychological incapacity, namely, juridical antecedence, incurability, and gravity, must be refined accordingly.
“With regard to the requisite of incurability, it must now be recognized that psychological incapacity is incurable only in the legal (not medical) sense in 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.’ In order for the said requisite to obtain, there must be ‘[a]n undeniable pattern of a persisting failure to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse that must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.’
“Meanwhile, the requisite of gravity in psychological incapacity must be such that it is caused by a genuinely psychic cause, and not just ‘mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes [or] occasional emotional outbursts’ nor mere ‘refusal, neglect[,] difficulty, much less ill will.’ As such, “a deeper and fuller assessment of the alleged incapacity must be done such that it is clearly and convincingly shown that the fulfillment of the essential marital obligations is not merely feigned or cumbersome but rather, practically impossible, because of the distinct psychological makeup of the person relative to his or her spouse.’
“Lastly, the requisite of juridical antecedence (which — to note — is explicitly necessitated by the phrase ‘at the time of the celebration of the marriage’ in Article 36) means that the incapacity is determined to exist during the time of celebration. While it may indeed be difficult — if not scientifically impossible — to determine the existence of psychological incapacity at the exact point in time that the couple exchanged their ‘I dos,’ it is sufficient, however, that the petitioner demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the incapacity, in all reasonable likelihood, already exists at the time of the marriage’s celebration. To determine the reasonable likelihood of its existence at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the Court, in Tan-Andal, held that ‘proof of juridically antecedent psychological incapacity may consist of testimonies describing the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to a particular behavior.’
“Moreover, the concept of juridical antecedence must be understood to include the ordinary experiences of the spouses not only prior to the marriage itself, but more importantly, during their ‘lived conjugal life’ together since, as the law itself states, a marriage can be declared null and void under Article 36 ‘even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.’ As the parties have yet to assume any of the essential marital obligations prior to being married, the Court discerns that the experience of marriage itself is the litmus test of self-realization x x x.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
