A ground for voiding marriages is psychological incapacity provided in Article 36 of the Family Code. It reads: 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.
Article 36 was first interpreted in 1995 in Santos v. Court of Appeals, a case where the wife, after three years of marriage, left for the United States, never to return to her husband and son. Despite the wife’s abandonment of the family, the Court refused to void the marriage after outlining the history of the provision and defining psychological incapacity, which must be characterized by [1] gravity that it must be so grave or serious that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; [2] juridical antecedence that the psychological incapacity must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the manifestation may rise only after the marriage; and [3] incurability. In 1997, the characteristics were expounded in Republic v. Molina [268 SCRA 198] that psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and proven thru expert opinion. This became the standard guideline in psychological incapacity. In 2021, our Honorable Supreme Court ruled in Tan-Andal v. Andal, [G.R. 196359] that psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not a medical one. As such, psychological incapacity cannot be characterized as incurable, but permanent relative to specific partner and incapacity existed before or during the marriage celebration. It should mean “no less than a mental [not physical] incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital obligations that must be assumed and discharged by the spouses. It is not a medical illness. As such, a person is suffering from a certain psychosis, like schizophrenia, will not make them automatically psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations under Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code.
Recently, a case reached our Supreme Court where a wife appealed the dismissal of her petition to annul the marriage based on Article 36 for her husband’s unjustified absence from the martial home. May it be considered a proof of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligation? This was the issue in Dela Cruz-Lanuza v. Lanuza, G.R. No. 242362 that was uploaded on 29 August 2024 in the Supreme Court website. In this case, Leonora and Alfredo were married in June 1984. Over time, Alfredo’s behavior changed. He refused to provide financial support to his family. Treated Leonora merely as occupant of their home rather than as his wife. He also engaged in extramarital affairs. They separated in 1994, after which Alfredo married several women. Leonora petitioned to nullify her marriage. The Regional Trial Court ruled there was not enough proof of psychological incapacity because the two subsequent marriages only established infidelity. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition, prompting her to appeal.
Our Honorable Supreme Court, speaking thru Justice Leonen ruled that in deciding cases for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, the Tan-Andal v. Andal ruling serves as a guide. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. The proof must be on the spouse’s personality structure that manifest itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality, which undermines the family and makes it impossible for him to understand and, more important, to comply with his essential marital obligations. Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses may testify on behaviors they observed from the incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations. Under Article 68 of the Family Code, spouses are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.
The fact of infidelity, failure to give support and unjustified absence are all indicative that he is not cognizant of his duties as a husband and father. As such, it was ruled that his decades-long unjustified absence from the marital home is considered proof of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations that will annul the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
