REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between them; that sometime in

vs. February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of his job in Manila, and since then
COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, respondents. Roridel had been the sole breadwinner of the family; that in October 1986
the couple had a very intense quarrel, as a result of which their relationship
was estranged; that in March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila
and went to live with her parents in Baguio City; that a few weeks later,
Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, and had since then abandoned them;
PANGANIBAN, J.: that Reynaldo had thus shown that he was psychologically incapable of
complying with essential marital obligations and was a highly immature and
The Family Code of the Philippines provides an entirely new ground (in habitually quarrel some individual who thought of himself as a king to be
addition to those enumerated in the Civil Code) to assail the validity of served; and that it would be to the couple's best interest to have their
a marriage, namely, "psychological incapacity." Since the Code's marriage declared null and void in order to free them from what appeared to
effectivity, our courts have been swamped with various petitions to be an incompatible marriage from the start.
declare marriages void based on this ground. Although this Court had
interpreted the meaning of psychological incapacity in the recent case In his Answer filed on August 28, 1989, Reynaldo admitted that he and
of Santos vs. Court of Appeals, still many judges and lawyers find Roridel could no longer live together as husband and wife, but contended
difficulty in applying said novel provision in specific cases. In the that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels were due to (1) Roridel's
present case and in the context of the herein assailed Decision of the strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after
Court of Appeals, the Solicitor General has labelled — exaggerated to their marriage; (2) Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties
be sure but nonetheless expressive of his frustration — Article 36 as such as cooking meals; and (3) Roridel's failure to run the household and
the "most liberal divorce procedure in the world." Hence, this Court in handle their finances.
addition to resolving the present case, finds the need to lay down
specific guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of
the Family Code. During the pre-trial on October 17, 1990, the following were stipulated:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 1. That the parties herein were legally married on April 14,
challenging the January 25, 1993 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals2 in 1985 at the Church of St. Augustine, Manila;
CA-G.R. CV No. 34858 affirming in toto the May 14, 1991 decision of the
Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad,3 Benguet, which declared the 2. That out of their marriage, a child named Albert Andre
marriage of respondent Roridel Olaviano Molina to Reynaldo Molina void ab Olaviano Molina was born on July 29, 1986;
initio, on the ground of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the
Family Code. 3. That the parties are separated-in-fact for more than
three years;
The Facts
4. That petitioner is not asking support for her and her
This case was commenced on August 16, 1990 with the filing by respondent child;
Roridel O. Molina of a verified petition for declaration of nullity of her
marriage to Reynaldo Molina. Essentially, the petition alleged that Roridel 5. That the respondent is not asking for damages;
and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church 4 in
Manila; that a son, Andre O. Molina was born; that after a year of marriage,
Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband 6. That the common child of the parties is in the custody of
and a father since he preferred to spend more time with his peers and the petitioner wife.
friends on whom he squandered his money; that he depended on his parents
for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their
Evidence for herein respondent wife consisted of her own testimony and that Respondent, in her Memorandum, adopts these discussions of the Court of
of her friends Rosemarie Ventura and Maria Leonora Padilla as well as of Appeals.
Ruth G. Lalas, a social worker, and of Dr. Teresita Hidalgo-Sison, a
psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. She also The petitioner, on the other hand, argues that "opposing and conflicting
submitted documents marked as Exhibits "A" to "E-1." Reynaldo did not personalities" is not equivalent to psychological incapacity, explaining that
present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial conference. such ground "is not simply the neglect by the parties to the marriage of their
responsibilities and duties, but a defect in their psychological nature which
On May 14, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage renders them incapable of performing such marital responsibilities and
void. The appeal of petitioner was denied by the Court of Appeals which duties."
affirmed in toto the RTC's decision. Hence, the present recourse.
The Court's Ruling
The Issue
The petition is meritorious.
In his petition, the Solicitor General insists that "the Court of Appeals made
an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase 'psychological In Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals6 this Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice
incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the Family Code) and made an Jose C. Vitug, ruled that "psychological incapacity should refer to no less
incorrect application thereof to the facts of the case," adding that the than a mental (nor physical) incapacity . . . and that (t)here is hardly any
appealed Decision tended "to establish in effect the most liberal divorce doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
procedure in the world which is anathema to our culture." 'psychological incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
In denying the Solicitor General's appeal, the respondent Court significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the
relied5 heavily on the trial court's findings "that the marriage between the time the marriage is celebrated." Citing Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former
parties broke up because of their opposing and conflicting personalities." presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic
Then, it added it sown opinion that "the Civil Code Revision Committee Archdiocese of Manila,7 Justice Vitug wrote that "the psychological
(hereinafter referred to as Committee) intended to liberalize the application incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence,
of our civil laws on personal and family rights. . . ." It concluded that: and (c) incurability."

As ground for annulment of marriage, We view On the other hand, in the present case, there is no clear showing to us that
psychologically incapacity as a broad range of mental and the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to us to be
behavioral conduct on the part of one spouse indicative of more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance
how he or she regards the marital union, his or her of some marital obligations. Mere showing of "irreconciliable differences" and
personal relationship with the other spouse, as well as his "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is
or her conduct in the long haul for the attainment of the not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and
principal objectives of marriage. If said conduct, observed duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to
and considered as a whole, tends to cause the union to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical) illness.
self-destruct because it defeats the very objectives of
marriage, then there is enough reason to leave the The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her
spouses to their individual fates. husband could nor get along with each other. There had been no showing of
the gravity of the problem; neither its juridical antecedence nor its
In the case at bar, We find that the trial judge committed incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison showed no incurable
no indiscretion in analyzing and deciding the instant case, psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility, not psychological incapacity. Dr.
as it did, hence, We find no cogent reason to disturb the Sison testified:8
findings and conclusions thus made.
 COURT trial courts interpreting and applying it, the Court decided to invite two amici
curiae, namely, the Most Reverend Oscar V. Cruz,9 Vicar Judicial (Presiding
Q It is therefore the recommendation of Judge) of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
the psychiatrist based on your findings in the Philippines, and Justice Ricardo C. Puno, 10 a member of the Family
that it is better for the Court to annul Code Revision Committee. The Court takes this occasion to thank these
(sic) the marriage? friends of the Court for their informative and interesting discussions during
the oral argument on December 3, 1996, which they followed up with written
memoranda.
A Yes, Your Honor.
From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the following
Q There is no hope for the marriage? guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code
are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
A There is no hope, the man is also
living with another woman. (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
Q Is it also the stand of the psychiatrist continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
that the parties are psychologically unfit rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity
for each other but they are of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire
psychologically fit with other parties? Article on the Family, 11 recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It
decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution
A Yes, Your Honor. at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected"
by the state.

Q Neither are they psychologically unfit

for their professions? The Family Code 12 echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the
family and emphasizes the permanence, inviolability and solidarity

A Yes, Your Honor.

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or
clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
The Court has no experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family
more questions. Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical.
although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence
In the case of Reynaldo, there is no showing that his alleged personality must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or
traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the time of physically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the
marriage celebration. While some effort was made to prove that there was a obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid
failure to fulfill pre-nuptial impressions of "thoughtfulness and gentleness" on assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given
Reynaldo's part of being "conservative, homely and intelligent" on the part of here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle
Roridel, such failure of expectation is nor indicative of antecedent of ejusdem generis, 13 nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a
psychological incapacity. If at all, it merely shows love's temporary blindness psychological illness and its incapacitating nature explained. Expert
to the faults and blemishes of the beloved. evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist and clinical psychologists.

During its deliberations, the Court decided to go beyond merely ruling on the (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the
facts of this case vis-a-vis existing law and jurisprudence. In view of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was
novelty of Art. 36 of the Family Code and the difficulty experienced by many existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the
illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have be given to decision of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law
attached at such moment, or prior thereto. on evidence — what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be
decreed civilly void.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the
only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be
everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to given persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church — while remaining
the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related independent, separate and apart from each other — shall walk together in
to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing
a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and marriage and the family as the inviolable base of the nation.
prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically
capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
obligation of marriage. Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall he
handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the quoted in the decision, briefly staring therein his reasons for his agreement
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General,
characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such
outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed
downright incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge
ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon
person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that 1095.
effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby
complying with the obligations essential to marriage. In the instant case and applying Leouel Santos, we have already ruled to
grant the petition. Such ruling becomes even more cogent with the use of the
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 foregoing guidelines.
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 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo
petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision. Molina subsists and remains valid.

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of SO ORDERED.

the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive,
should be given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was
taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno Francisco, Hermosisima,
Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides: Jr., and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those Regalado, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concurs in the result.
who are unable to assume the essential obligations of
marriage due to causes of psychological nature. 14

Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to

harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to
reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should
 Separate Opinions insanity, there is a resultant defect of vice of consent, thus rendering the
marriage annulable under Art. 45 of the Family Code.

That the intent of the members of the U.P. Law Center's Civil Code Revision
PADILLA, J., concuring opinion: Committee was to exclude mental inability to understand the essential nature
of marriage and focus strictly on psychological incapacity is demonstrated in
the way the provision in question underwent revisions.
I concur in the result of the decision penned by Mr. Justice Panganiban but
only because of the peculiar facts of the case. As to whether or not the
psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of a At the Committee meeting of July 26, 1986, the draft provision read:
marriage, depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of
the case. In Leouel Santos v. Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario-Bedia (7) Those marriages contracted by any party who, at the
Santos, G.R. No. 112019, 4 January 1995, 240 SCRA 20-36, I maintained, time of the celebration, was wanting in the sufficient use of
and I still maintain, that there was psychological incapacity on the part of the reason or judgment to understand the essential nature of
wife to discharge the duties of a wife in a valid marriage. The facts of the marriage or was psychologically or mentally incapacitated
present case, after an indepth study, do not support a similar conclusion. to discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such
Obviously, each case must be judged, not on the basis of a lack of incapacity is made manifest after the celebration.
priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own
facts. In the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of The twists and turns which the ensuing discussion took finally produced the
marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on "all fours" with another case. The following revised provision even before the session was over:
trial judge must take pains in examining the actual millieu and the appellate
court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that
of the trial court. (7) That contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such
ROMERO, J., separate opinion: lack or incapacity becomes manifest after the celebration.

The majority opinion, overturning that of the Court of Appeals which affirmed Noticeably, the immediately preceding formulation above has dropped any
the Regional Trial Court ruling. upheld petitioner Solicitor General's position reference to "wanting in the sufficient use of reason or judgment to
that "opposing and conflicting personalities" is not equivalent to understand the essential nature or marriage" and to "mentally incapacitated."
psychological incapacity, for the latter "is not simply the neglect by the It was explained that these phrases refer to "defects in the mental faculties
parties to the marriage of their responsibilities and duties, but a defect in vitiating consent, which is not the idea . . . but lack of appreciation of one's
their Psychological nature which renders them incapable of performing such marital obligation." There being a defect in consent, "it is clear that it should
marital responsibilities and duties. be a ground for voidable marriage because there is the appearance of
consent and it is capable of convalidation for the simple reason that there
In the present case, the alleged personality traits of Reynaldo, the husband, are lucid intervals and there are sanity is curable. . . . Psychological
did not constitute so much "psychological incapacity" as a "difficulty," if not incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to do with
outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. consent; it refers to obligations attendant to
"It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities marriage."1
and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to
be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness." My own position as a member of the Committee then was that psychological
incapacity is, in a sense, insanity of a lesser degree.
I would add that neither should the incapacity be the result of mental illness.
For if it were due to insanity or defects in the mental faculties short of
As to the proposal of Justice Caguioa to use the term "psychological or Where consent is vitiated due to circumstances existing at the time of the
mental impotence," Archbishop Oscar Cruz opined in he earlier February 9, marriage, such marriage which stands valid until annulled is capable of
1984 session that this term "is an invention of some churchmen who are ratification or convalidation.
moralists but not canonists, that is why it is considered a weak phrase." He
said that the Code of Canon Law would rather express it as "psychological On the other hand, for reasons of public policy or lack of essential requisites,
or mental incapacity to discharge. . . ." Justice Ricardo C. Puno opined that some marriages are void from the beginning.
sometimes a person may be psychologically impotent with one but not with
another.
With the revision of Book I of the Civil Code, particularly the provisions on
Marriage, the drafters, now open to fresh winds of change in keeping with
One of the guidelines enumerated in the majority opinion for the the more permissive mores and practices of the time, took a leaf from the
interpretation and application of Art. 36 is: "Such incapacity must also be relatively liberal provisions of Canon Law.
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 everyone of the same sex." Canon 1095 which states, inter alia, that the following persons are incapable
of contracting marriage: "3. (those) who, because of causes of a
psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of
The Committee, through Prof. Araceli T. Barrera, considered the inclusion of marriage" provided the model for what is now Art. 36 of the Family Code: "A
the phrase" and is incurable" but Prof. Esteban B. Bautista commented that marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
this would give rise to the question of how they will determine curability and psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations
Justice Caguioa agreed that it would be more problematic. Yet the possibility of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest
that one may be cured after the psychological incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
after the marriage was not ruled out by Justice Puno and Justice Alice
Sempio-Diy. Justice Caguioa suggested that the remedy was to allow the
afflicted spouse to remarry. It bears stressing that unlike in Civil Law, Canon Law recognizes only two
types of marriages with respect to their validity: valid and void. Civil Law,
however, recognizes an intermediate state, the voidable or annullable
For clarity, the Committee classified the bases for determining void marriages. When the Ecclesiastical Tribunal "annuls" a marriage, it actually
marriages, viz: declares the marriage null and void, i.e., it never really existed in the first
place, for a valid sacramental marriage can never be dissolved. Hence, a
1. lack of one or more of the essential properly performed and consummated marriage between two living Roman
requisites of marriage as contract; Catholics can only be nullified by the formal annulment process which entails
a full tribunal procedure with a Court selection and a formal hearing.
2. reasons of public policy;
Such so-called church "annulments" are not recognized by Civil Law as
3. special cases and special situations. severing the marriage ties as to capacitate the parties to enter lawfully into
another marriage. The grounds for nullifying civil marriage, not being
congruent with those laid down by Canon Law, the former being more strict,
The ground of psychological incapacity was subsumed under quite a number of married couples have found themselves in limbo — freed
"special cases and special situations," hence its special treatment from the marriage bonds in the eyes of the Catholic Church but yet unable to
in Art. 36 in the Family Code as finally enacted. contract a valid civil marriage under state laws. Heedless of civil law
sanctions, some persons contract new marriages or enter into live-in
Nowhere in the Civil Code provisions on Marriage is there a ground for relationships.
avoiding or annulling marriages that even comes close to being
psychological in nature. It was precisely to provide a satisfactory solution to such anomalous
situations that the Civil Law Revision Committee decided to engraft the
Canon Law concept of psychological incapacity into the Family Code — and accommodation by the Church to the advances made in psychology during
classified the same as a ground for declaring marriages void ab initio or the past decades. There was now the expertise to provide the all-important
totally in existent from the beginning. connecting link between a marriage breakdown and premarital causes.

A brief historical note on the Old Canon Law (1917). This Old Code, while it During the 1970s, the Church broadened its whole idea of marriage from that
did not provide directly for psychological incapacity, in effect recognized the of a legal contract to that of a covenant. The result of this was that it could no
same indirectly from a combination of three old canons: "Canon #1081 longer be assumed in annulment cases that a person who could intellectually
required persons to 'be capable according to law' in order to give valid understand the concept of marriage could necessarily give valid consent to
consent; Canon #1082 required that persons 'be at least not ignorant' of the marry. The ability to both grasp and assume the real obligations of a mature,
major elements required in marriage; and Canon #1087 (the force and fear lifelong commitment are now considered a necessary prerequisite to valid
category) required that internal and external freedom be present in order for matrimonial consent.2
consent to be valid. This line of interpretation produced two distinct but
related grounds for annulment, called 'lack of due discretion' and 'lack of due Rotal decisions continued applying the concept of incipient psychological
competence.' Lack of due discretion means that the person did not have the incapacity, "not only to sexual anomalies but to all kinds of personality
ability to give valid consent at the time of the wedding and therefore the disorders that incapacitate a spouse or both spouses from assuming or
union is invalid. Lack of due competence means that the person carrying out the essential obligations of marriage. For marriage . . . is not
was incapable of carrying out the obligations of the promise he or she made merely cohabitation or the right of the spouses to each others' body for
during the wedding ceremony. heterosexual acts, but is, in its totality, the right to the community of the
whole of life, i.e., the right to a developing. lifelong relationship. Rotal
"Favorable annulment decisions by the Roman Rota in the 1950s and 1960s decisions since 1973 have refined the meaning of psychological or psychic
involving sexual disorders such as homosexuality and nymphomania laid the capacity for marriage as presupposing the development of an adult
foundation for a broader approach to the kind of proof necessary for personality; as meaning the capacity of the spouses to give themselves to
psychological grounds for annulment. The Rota had reasoned for the first each other and to accept the other as a distinct person; that the spouses
time in several cases that the capacity to give valid consent at the time of must be 'other oriented' since the obligations of marriage are rooted in a self-
marriage was probably not present in persons who had displayed such giving love; and that the spouses must have the capacity for interpersonal
problems shortly after the marriage. The nature of this change was nothing relationship because marriage is more than just a physical reality but
short of revolutionary. Once the Rota itself had demonstrated a cautious involves a true intertwining of personalities. The fulfillment of the obligations
willingness to use this kind of hindsight, the way was paved for what came of marriage depends. according to Church decisions, on the strength of this
after 1970. Diocesan Tribunals began to accept proof of serious interpersonal relationship. A serious incapacity for interpersonal sharing and
psychological problems that manifested themselves shortly after the support is held to impair the relationship and consequently, the ability to fulfill
ceremony as proof of an inability to give valid consent at the time of the the essential marital obligations. The marital capacity of one spouse is not
ceremony. considered in isolation but in reference to the fundamental relationship to the
other spouse.3
Furthermore, and equally significant, the professional opinion of a
psychological expert became increasingly important in such cases. Data Fr. Green, in an article in Catholic Mind, lists six elements necessary to the
about the person's entire life, both before and after the ceremony, were mature marital relationship:
presented to these experts and they were asked to give professional
opinions about a party's mental at the time of the wedding. These opinions The courts consider the following elements crucial to the
were rarely challenged and tended to be accepted as decisive evidence of marital commitment: (1) a permanent and faithful
lack of valid consent. commitment to the marriage partner; (2) openness to
children and partner; (3) stability; (4) emotional maturity;
The Church took pains to point out that its new openness in this area did not (5) financial responsibility; (6) an ability to cope with the
amount to the addition of new grounds for annulment, but rather was an ordinary stresses and strains of marriage, etc.
 Fr. Green goes on to speak about some of the However in the recent case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals,6 this Court
psychological conditions that might lead to the failure of a upheld both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in declaring
marriage: the presence of psychological incapacity on the part of the husband. Said
petitioner husband, after ten (10) months' sleeping with his wife never had
At stake is a type of constitutional impairment precluding coitus with her, a fact he did not deny but he alleged that it was due to the
conjugal communion even with the best intentions of the physical disorder of his wife which, however, he failed to prove. Goaded by
parties. Among the psychic factors possibly giving rise to the indifference and stubborn refusal of her husband to fulfill a basic marital
his or her inability to fulfill marital obligations are the obligation described as "to procreate children based on the universal
following: (1) antisocial personality with its fundamental principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic
lack of loyalty to persons or sense of moral values; (2) end of marriage," the wife brought the action in the lower court to declare the
hyperesthesia, where the individual has no real freedom of marriage null.
sexual choice; (3) the inadequate personality where
personal responses consistently fallshort of reasonable The Court, quoting Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the
expectations. Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila
(Branch I) on Psychological incapacity concluded:
xxx xxx xxx
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses
The psychological grounds are the best approach for to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and
anyone who doubts whether he or she has a case for an the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage
annulment on any other terms. A situation that does not fit tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity
into any of the more traditional categories often fits very than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal
easily into the psychological category. is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the
prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse
with his or her spouse is considered a sign of
As new as the psychological grounds are, experts are psychological incapacity.
already detecting a shift in their use. Whereas originally
the emphasis was on the parties' inability to exercise
proper judgment at the time of the marriage (lack of due We declared:
discretion), recent cases seem to be concentrating on the
parties' to assume or carry out their responsibilities an This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties
obligations as promised (lack of due competence). An found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated
advantage to using the ground of lack of due competence marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the studied judgment of
is that the at the time the marriage was entered into civil respondent appellate court.
divorce and breakup of the family almost is of someone's
failure out marital responsibilities as promised at the time 1 concur with the majority opinion that the herein marriage remains valid and
the marriage was entered into.4 subsisting absent psychological incapacity (under Art. 36 of the Family
Code) on the part of either or both of the spouses.
In the instant case, "opposing and conflicting personalities" of the spouses
were not considered equivalent to psychological incapacity. As well
in Santos v. Court of Appeals cited in the ponencia, the Court held that the
failure of the wife to return home from the U.S. or to communicate with her
husband for more then five years is not proof of her psychological incapacity VITUG, J., concurring:
as to render the marriage a nullity.5 Therefore, Art. 36 is inapplicable and the
marriages remain valid and subsisting.
I fully concur with my esteemed 'colleague Mr. Justice Artemio V. The principles in the proper application of the law teach us that the several
Panganiban in his ponencia, and I find to be most helpful the guidelines that provisions of a Code must be read like a congruent whole. Thus, in
he prepared for the bench and the bar in the proper appreciation of Article 36 determining the import of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36, one
of Executive Order No. 209 ("The Family Code of the Philippines"). The term must also read it along with, albeit to be taken as distinct from, the other
"psychological incapacity" was neither defined nor exemplified by the Family grounds enumerated in the Code, like Articles 35, 37, 38 and 41 that would
Code. Thus — likewise, but for distinct reasons, render the marriage merely voidable, or
Article 55 that could justify a petition for legal separation. Care must be
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the observed so that these various circumstances are not applied so
time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated indiscriminately as if the law were indifferent on the matter.
to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity I would wish to reiterate the Court's' statement in Santos vs. Court of
becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Appeals;3 viz:

The Revision Committee, constituted under the auspices of the (T)he use of the phrase "psychological incapacity" under
U.P. Law Center, which drafted the Code explained: Article 36 of the Code has not been meant to comprehend
all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise
(T)he Committee would like the judge to interpret the mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely
provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances. . .
the findings of experts and researchers in psychological Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and
disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which, construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction
although not binding on the civil courts, may be given with, existing precepts in our law on marriage. Thus
persuasive effect since the provision was taken from correlated, "psychological incapacity" should refer to no
Canon Law.1 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
Article 36 of the Family Code was concededly taken from Canon 1095 of the the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by
New Code of Canon Law — Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
Canon 1095. (The following persons) are incapable of fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any
contracting marriage; (those) — doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine
the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most
1. who lack sufficient use of reason; serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability of the
spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This
2. who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code
concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties, to be which considers children conceived prior to the judicial
given and accepted mutually; declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be "legitimate."

3. who for causes of psychological nature are unable to The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception
assume the essential obligations of marriage — of marriage, like the state of a party being of unsound
mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual
that should give that much value to Canon Law jurisprudence as an alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders
aid to the interpretation and construction of the statutory the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46,
enactment.2 Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,
 lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the Section 12, Article II:
marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation
under Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions of Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life
the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
possibility of these various circumstances being autonomous social institution . . . .
themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the
disorder, indicia of psychological
incapacity.4 Section 1, Article XV:

In fine, the term "psychological incapacity," to be a ground for then nullity of Sec. 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, must be able to pass the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its
following tests; viz: solidarity and actively promote its total development. (The
1987 Constitution)
First, the incapacity must be psychological or mental, not physical, in nature;
The case of Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51, might here be significant not
so much for the specific issue there resolved but for the tone it has set. The
Second, the psychological incapacity must relate to the inability, not mere Court there has held that constitutional provisions are to be considered
refusal, to understand, assume end discharge the basic marital obligations of mandatory unless by necessary implication, a different intention is manifest
living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering mutual help such that to have them enforced strictly would cause more harm than by
and support; disregarding them. It is quite clear to me that the constitutional mandate on
marriage and the family has not been meant to be simply directory in
Third, the psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is character, nor for mere expediency or convenience, but one that demands a
contracted although its overt manifestations and the marriage may occur meaningful, not half-hearted, respect.
only thereafter; and

Fourth, the mental disorder must be grave or serious and incurable.

Separate Opinions
It may well be that the Family Code Revision Committee has envisioned
Article 36, as not a few observers would suspect, as another form of PADILLA, J., concuring opinion:
absolute divorce or, as still others would also put it, to be a alternative to
divorce; however, the fact still remains that the language of the law has
failed to carry out, even if true, any such intendment. It might have indeed I concur in the result of the decision penned by Mr. Justice Panganiban but
turned out for the better, if it were otherwise, there could be good reasons to only because of the peculiar facts of the case. As to whether or not the
doubt the constitutionality of the measure. The fundamental law itself, no psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of a
less, has laid down in terse language its unequivocal command on how the marriage, depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of
State should regard marriage and the family, thus — the case. In Leouel Santos v. Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario-Bedia
Santos, G.R. No. 112019, 4 January 1995, 240 SCRA 20-36, I maintained,
and I still maintain, that there was psychological incapacity on the part of the
Section 2, Article XV: wife to discharge the duties of a wife in a valid marriage. The facts of the
present case, after an indepth study, do not support a similar conclusion.
Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the Obviously, each case must be judged, not on the basis of a
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own
State. facts. In the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of
marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on "all fours" with another case. The
trial judge must take pains in examining the actual millieu and the appellate (7) That contracted by any party who, at the time of the
court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
of the trial court. discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such
lack or incapacity becomes manifest after the celebration.
ROMERO, J., separate opinion:
Noticeably, the immediately preceding formulation above has dropped any
The majority opinion, overturning that of the Court of Appeals which affirmed reference to "wanting in the sufficient use of reason or judgment to
the Regional Trial Court ruling. upheld petitioner Solicitor General's position understand the essential nature or marriage" and to "mentally incapacitated."
that "opposing and conflicting personalities" is not equivalent to It was explained that these phrases refer to "defects in the mental faculties
psychological incapacity, for the latter "is not simply the neglect by the vitiating consent, which is not the idea . . . but lack of appreciation of one's
parties to the marriage of their responsibilities and duties, but a defect in marital obligation." There being a defect in consent, "it is clear that it should
their Psychological nature which renders them incapable of performing such be a ground for voidable marriage because there is the appearance of
marital responsibilities and duties. consent and it is capable of convalidation for the simple reason that there
are lucid intervals and there are sanity is curable. . . . Psychological
incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to do with
In the present case, the alleged personality traits of Reynaldo, the husband, consent; it refers to obligations attendant to
did not constitute so much "psychological incapacity" as a "difficulty," if not marriage."1
outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations.
"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 My own position as a member of the Committee then was that psychological
be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness." incapacity is, in a sense, insanity of a lesser degree.

I would add that neither should the incapacity be the result of mental illness. As to the proposal of Justice Caguioa to use the term "psychological or
For if it were due to insanity or defects in the mental faculties short of mental impotence," Archbishop Oscar Cruz opined in he earlier February 9,
insanity, there is a resultant defect of vice of consent, thus rendering the 1984 session that this term "is an invention of some churchmen who are
marriage annulable under Art. 45 of the Family Code. moralists but not canonists, that is why it is considered a weak phrase." He
said that the Code of Canon Law would rather express it as "psychological
or mental incapacity to discharge. . . ." Justice Ricardo C. Puno opined that
That the intent of the members of the U.P. Law Center's Civil Code Revision sometimes a person may be psychologically impotent with one but not with
Committee was to exclude mental inability to understand the essential nature another.
of marriage and focus strictly on psychological incapacity is demonstrated in
the way the provision in question underwent revisions.
One of the guidelines enumerated in the majority opinion for the
interpretation and application of Art. 36 is: "Such incapacity must also be
At the Committee meeting of July 26, 1986, the draft provision read: 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
(7) Those marriages contracted by any party who, at the necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex."
time of the celebration, was wanting in the sufficient use of
reason or judgment to understand the essential nature of The Committee, through Prof. Araceli T. Barrera, considered the inclusion of
marriage or was psychologically or mentally incapacitated the phrase" and is incurable" but Prof. Esteban B. Bautista commented that
to discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such this would give rise to the question of how they will determine curability and
lack of incapacity is made manifest after the celebration. Justice Caguioa agreed that it would be more problematic. Yet the possibility
that one may be cured after the psychological incapacity becomes manifest
The twists and turns which the ensuing discussion took finally produced the after the marriage was not ruled out by Justice Puno and Justice Alice
following revised provision even before the session was over:
Sempio-Diy. Justice Caguioa suggested that the remedy was to allow the It bears stressing that unlike in Civil Law, Canon Law recognizes only two
afflicted spouse to remarry. types of marriages with respect to their validity: valid and void. Civil Law,
however, recognizes an intermediate state, the voidable or annullable
For clarity, the Committee classified the bases for determining void marriages. When the Ecclesiastical Tribunal "annuls" a marriage, it actually
marriages, viz: declares the marriage null and void, i.e., it never really existed in the first
place, for a valid sacramental marriage can never be dissolved. Hence, a
properly performed and consummated marriage between two living Roman
1. lack of one or more of the essential Catholics can only be nullified by the formal annulment process which entails
requisites of marriage as contract; a full tribunal procedure with a Court selection and a formal hearing.

2. reasons of public policy; Such so-called church "annulments" are not recognized by Civil Law as
severing the marriage ties as to capacitate the parties to enter lawfully into
3. special cases and special situations. another marriage. The grounds for nullifying civil marriage, not being
congruent with those laid down by Canon Law, the former being more strict,
The ground of psychological incapacity was subsumed under quite a number of married couples have found themselves in limbo — freed
"special cases and special situations," hence its special treatment from the marriage bonds in the eyes of the Catholic Church but yet unable to
in Art. 36 in the Family Code as finally enacted. contract a valid civil marriage under state laws. Heedless of civil law
sanctions, some persons contract new marriages or enter into live-in
relationships.
Nowhere in the Civil Code provisions on Marriage is there a ground for
avoiding or annulling marriages that even comes close to being
psychological in nature. It was precisely to provide a satisfactory solution to such anomalous
situations that the Civil Law Revision Committee decided to engraft the
Canon Law concept of psychological incapacity into the Family Code — and
Where consent is vitiated due to circumstances existing at the time of the classified the same as a ground for declaring marriages void ab initio or
marriage, such marriage which stands valid until annulled is capable of totally in existent from the beginning.
ratification or convalidation.
A brief historical note on the Old Canon Law (1917). This Old Code, while it
On the other hand, for reasons of public policy or lack of essential requisites, did not provide directly for psychological incapacity, in effect recognized the
some marriages are void from the beginning. same indirectly from a combination of three old canons: "Canon #1081
required persons to 'be capable according to law' in order to give valid
With the revision of Book I of the Civil Code, particularly the provisions on consent; Canon #1082 required that persons 'be at least not ignorant' of the
Marriage, the drafters, now open to fresh winds of change in keeping with major elements required in marriage; and Canon #1087 (the force and fear
the more permissive mores and practices of the time, took a leaf from the category) required that internal and external freedom be present in order for
relatively liberal provisions of Canon Law. consent to be valid. This line of interpretation produced two distinct but
related grounds for annulment, called 'lack of due discretion' and 'lack of due
competence.' Lack of due discretion means that the person did not have the
Canon 1095 which states, inter alia, that the following persons are incapable
ability to give valid consent at the time of the wedding and therefore the
of contracting marriage: "3. (those) who, because of causes of a
union is invalid. Lack of due competence means that the person
psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of
was incapable of carrying out the obligations of the promise he or she made
marriage" provided the model for what is now Art. 36 of the Family Code: "A
during the wedding ceremony.
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 "Favorable annulment decisions by the Roman Rota in the 1950s and 1960s
only after its solemnization. involving sexual disorders such as homosexuality and nymphomania laid the
foundation for a broader approach to the kind of proof necessary for personality; as meaning the capacity of the spouses to give themselves to
psychological grounds for annulment. The Rota had reasoned for the first each other and to accept the other as a distinct person; that the spouses
time in several cases that the capacity to give valid consent at the time of must be 'other oriented' since the obligations of marriage are rooted in a self-
marriage was probably not present in persons who had displayed such giving love; and that the spouses must have the capacity for interpersonal
problems shortly after the marriage. The nature of this change was nothing relationship because marriage is more than just a physical reality but
short of revolutionary. Once the Rota itself had demonstrated a cautious involves a true intertwining of personalities. The fulfillment of the obligations
willingness to use this kind of hindsight, the way was paved for what came of marriage depends. according to Church decisions, on the strength of this
after 1970. Diocesan Tribunals began to accept proof of serious interpersonal relationship. A serious incapacity for interpersonal sharing and
psychological problems that manifested themselves shortly after the support is held to impair the relationship and consequently, the ability to fulfill
ceremony as proof of an inability to give valid consent at the time of the the essential marital obligations. The marital capacity of one spouse is not
ceremony. considered in isolation but in reference to the fundamental relationship to the
other spouse.3
Furthermore, and equally significant, the professional opinion of a
psychological expert became increasingly important in such cases. Data Fr. Green, in an article in Catholic Mind, lists six elements necessary to the
about the person's entire life, both before and after the ceremony, were mature marital relationship:
presented to these experts and they were asked to give professional
opinions about a party's mental at the time of the wedding. These opinions The courts consider the following elements crucial to the
were rarely challenged and tended to be accepted as decisive evidence of marital commitment: (1) a permanent and faithful
lack of valid consent. commitment to the marriage partner; (2) openness to
children and partner; (3) stability; (4) emotional maturity;
The Church took pains to point out that its new openness in this area did not (5) financial responsibility; (6) an ability to cope with the
amount to the addition of new grounds for annulment, but rather was an ordinary stresses and strains of marriage, etc.
accommodation by the Church to the advances made in psychology during
the past decades. There was now the expertise to provide the all-important Fr. Green goes on to speak about some of the
connecting link between a marriage breakdown and premarital causes. psychological conditions that might lead to the failure of a
marriage:
During the 1970s, the Church broadened its whole idea of marriage from that
of a legal contract to that of a covenant. The result of this was that it could no At stake is a type of constitutional impairment precluding
longer be assumed in annulment cases that a person who could intellectually conjugal communion even with the best intentions of the
understand the concept of marriage could necessarily give valid consent to parties. Among the psychic factors possibly giving rise to
marry. The ability to both grasp and assume the real obligations of a mature, his or her inability to fulfill marital obligations are the
lifelong commitment are now considered a necessary prerequisite to valid following: (1) antisocial personality with its fundamental
matrimonial consent.2 lack of loyalty to persons or sense of moral values; (2)
hyperesthesia, where the individual has no real freedom of
Rotal decisions continued applying the concept of incipient psychological sexual choice; (3) the inadequate personality where
incapacity, "not only to sexual anomalies but to all kinds of personality personal responses consistently fallshort of reasonable
disorders that incapacitate a spouse or both spouses from assuming or expectations.
carrying out the essential obligations of marriage. For marriage . . . is not
merely cohabitation or the right of the spouses to each others' body for xxx xxx xxx
heterosexual acts, but is, in its totality, the right to the community of the
whole of life, i.e., the right to a developing. lifelong relationship. Rotal
decisions since 1973 have refined the meaning of psychological or psychic The psychological grounds are the best approach for
capacity for marriage as presupposing the development of an adult anyone who doubts whether he or she has a case for an
annulment on any other terms. A situation that does not fit
 into any of the more traditional categories often fits very tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity
easily into the psychological category. than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal
is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the
As new as the psychological grounds are, experts are prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse
already detecting a shift in their use. Whereas originally with his or her spouse is considered a sign of
the emphasis was on the parties' inability to exercise psychological incapacity.
proper judgment at the time of the marriage (lack of due
discretion), recent cases seem to be concentrating on the We declared:
parties' to assume or carry out their responsibilities an
obligations as promised (lack of due competence). An This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties
advantage to using the ground of lack of due competence found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated
is that the at the time the marriage was entered into civil marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the studied judgment of
divorce and breakup of the family almost is of someone's respondent appellate court.
failure out marital responsibilities as promised at the time
the marriage was entered into.4
1 concur with the majority opinion that the herein marriage remains valid and
subsisting absent psychological incapacity (under Art. 36 of the Family
In the instant case, "opposing and conflicting personalities" of the spouses Code) on the part of either or both of the spouses.
were not considered equivalent to psychological incapacity. As well
in Santos v. Court of Appeals cited in the ponencia, the Court held that the
failure of the wife to return home from the U.S. or to communicate with her
husband for more then five years is not proof of her psychological incapacity
as to render the marriage a nullity.5 Therefore, Art. 36 is inapplicable and the VITUG, J., concurring:
marriages remain valid and subsisting.
I fully concur with my esteemed 'colleague Mr. Justice Artemio V.
However in the recent case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals,6 this Court Panganiban in his ponencia, and I find to be most helpful the guidelines that
upheld both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in declaring he prepared for the bench and the bar in the proper appreciation of Article 36
the presence of psychological incapacity on the part of the husband. Said of Executive Order No. 209 ("The Family Code of the Philippines"). The term
petitioner husband, after ten (10) months' sleeping with his wife never had "psychological incapacity" was neither defined nor exemplified by the Family
coitus with her, a fact he did not deny but he alleged that it was due to the Code. Thus —
physical disorder of his wife which, however, he failed to prove. Goaded by
the indifference and stubborn refusal of her husband to fulfill a basic marital Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the
obligation described as "to procreate children based on the universal time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated
principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic to comply with the essential marital obligations of
end of marriage," the wife brought the action in the lower court to declare the marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity
marriage null. becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

The Court, quoting Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the The Revision Committee, constituted under the auspices of the
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila U.P. Law Center, which drafted the Code explained:
(Branch I) on Psychological incapacity concluded:

(T)he Committee would like the judge to interpret the

If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience,
to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the findings of experts and researchers in psychological
the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which,
 although not binding on the civil courts, may be given construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction
persuasive effect since the provision was taken from with, existing precepts in our law on marriage. Thus
Canon Law.1 correlated, "psychological incapacity" should refer to no
less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
Article 36 of the Family Code was concededly taken from Canon 1095 of the party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants
New Code of Canon Law — 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
Canon 1095. (The following persons) are incapable of obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
contracting marriage; (those) — fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any
doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine
1. who lack sufficient use of reason; the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most
serious cases of personality disorders clearly
2. who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability of the
concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties, to be spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This
given and accepted mutually; conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code
which considers children conceived prior to the judicial
declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be "legitimate."
3. who for causes of psychological nature are unable to
assume the essential obligations of marriage —
The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception
of marriage, like the state of a party being of unsound
that should give that much value to Canon Law jurisprudence as an mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual
aid to the interpretation and construction of the statutory alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders
enactment.2 the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46,
Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,
The principles in the proper application of the law teach us that the several lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the
provisions of a Code must be read like a congruent whole. Thus, in marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation
determining the import of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36, one under Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions of
must also read it along with, albeit to be taken as distinct from, the other the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the
grounds enumerated in the Code, like Articles 35, 37, 38 and 41 that would possibility of these various circumstances being
likewise, but for distinct reasons, render the marriage merely voidable, or themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the
Article 55 that could justify a petition for legal separation. Care must be disorder, indicia of psychological
observed so that these various circumstances are not applied so incapacity.4
indiscriminately as if the law were indifferent on the matter.
In fine, the term "psychological incapacity," to be a ground for then nullity of
I would wish to reiterate the Court's' statement in Santos vs. Court of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, must be able to pass the
Appeals;3 viz: following tests; viz:

(T)he use of the phrase "psychological incapacity" under First, the incapacity must be psychological or mental, not physical, in nature;
Article 36 of the Code has not been meant to comprehend
all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise Second, the psychological incapacity must relate to the inability, not mere
mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely refusal, to understand, assume end discharge the basic marital obligations of
low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances. . .
Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and
living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering mutual help mandatory unless by necessary implication, a different intention is manifest
and support; such that to have them enforced strictly would cause more harm than by
disregarding them. It is quite clear to me that the constitutional mandate on
Third, the psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is marriage and the family has not been meant to be simply directory in
contracted although its overt manifestations and the marriage may occur character, nor for mere expediency or convenience, but one that demands a
only thereafter; and meaningful, not half-hearted, respect.

Fourth, the mental disorder must be grave or serious and incurable.

It may well be that the Family Code Revision Committee has envisioned
Article 36, as not a few observers would suspect, as another form of
absolute divorce or, as still others would also put it, to be a alternative to
divorce; however, the fact still remains that the language of the law has
failed to carry out, even if true, any such intendment. It might have indeed
turned out for the better, if it were otherwise, there could be good reasons to
doubt the constitutionality of the measure. The fundamental law itself, no
less, has laid down in terse language its unequivocal command on how the
State should regard marriage and the family, thus —

Section 2, Article XV:

Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the

foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
State.

Section 12, Article II:

Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life

and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution . . . .

Section 1, Article XV:

Sec. 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the

foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its
solidarity and actively promote its total development. (The
1987 Constitution)

The case of Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51, might here be significant not
so much for the specific issue there resolved but for the tone it has set. The
Court there has held that constitutional provisions are to be considered