DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE: PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

Is the defendant spouse required to be personally examined by a psychologist to declare marriage void by reason of psychological incapacity?

No. There is no requirement that the defendant spouse be personally examined by a psychologist. What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. (G.R. No. 180668)


Are irreconcilable differences a ground for psychological incapacity?

No. The aw requires that the psychological incapacity be a downright incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. The mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity. (G.R. no. 166579)


Do you need psychologist to determine psychological incapacity?

Yes. In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts, which are concededly not endowed with expertise in the field of psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform themselves on the matter, and thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and judicious judgment. Indeed, the conditions for the malady of being grave, antecedent and incurable demand the in-depth diagnosis by experts. (G.R. No. 166357, 14 Janaury 2015)

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (annulment) through Psychological Incapacity

There are several grounds to declare marriage null. It could be by reason of absence of essential requisites of marriage like age, license, etc. or against public policy, or psychological incapacity, among others.

One of the most popular is psychological incapacity. This is a state of being of the husband or wife which hinders them to permanently perform their marital obligations to each other. In a recent case, Danilo Aurelio v. Corazon Aurelio, June 6, 2011, G.R. No. 175367, it provides an excerpt on the allegations in the petition and provides the reason why it complies with the substance of the law (Molina Doctrine).

x x x  The said petition alleged, inter alia, that both husband and wife are psychologically incapable of performing and complying with their essential marital obligations.  Said psychological incapacity was existing prior and at the time of the marriage.  Said psychological incapacity was manifested by lack of financial support from the husband; his lack of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his working wife.  The husband exhibited consistent jealousy and distrust towards his wife.  His moods alternated between hostile defiance and contrition.  He refused to assist in the maintenance of the family.  He refused to foot the household bills and provide for his family's needs.  He exhibited arrogance.  He was completely insensitive to the feelings of his wife.  He liked to humiliate and embarrass his wife even in the presence of their children.

 

          Vida Aurelio, on the other hand, is effusive and displays her feelings openly and freely.  Her feelings change very quickly – from joy to fury to misery to despair, depending on her day-to-day experiences.  Her tolerance for boredom was very low.  She was emotionally immature; she cannot stand frustration or disappointment.  She cannot delay to gratify her needs.  She gets upset when she cannot get what she wants.  Self-indulgence lifts her spirits immensely.  Their hostility towards each other distorted their relationship.  Their incapacity to accept and fulfill the essential obligations of marital life led to the breakdown of their marriage.  Private respondent manifested psychological aversion to cohabit with her husband or to take care of him.  The psychological make-up of private respondent was evaluated by a psychologist, who found that the psychological incapacity of both husband and wife to perform their marital obligations is grave, incorrigible and incurable.  Private respondent suffers from a Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features; whereas petitioner suffers from passive aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder that renders him immature and irresponsible to assume the normal obligations of a marriage.

Clearly, although not required, it is essential to have an expert opinion of a Psychologist to show the disorder or abnormality suffered by the party. In this case, the husband opposed the petition and questioned the substance of the petition and alleged that there is no cause of action. The Court ruled in the following manner:

A review of the petition shows that it observed the requirements in Republic vs. Court of Appeals (268 SCRA 198), otherwise known as the Molina Doctrine. There was allegation of the root cause of the psychological incapacity of both the petitioner and the respondent contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition. The manifestation of juridical antecedence was alleged in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition. The allegations constituting the gravity of psychological incapacity were alleged in paragraph 9 (a to l) of the petition. The incurability was alleged in paragraph 10 of the petition. Moreover, the clinical finding of incurability was quoted in paragraph 15 of the petition. There is a cause of action presented in the petition for the nullification of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Whether or not the allegations are meritorious depends upon  the proofs to be presented by both parties. This, in turn, will entail the presentation of evidence which can only be done in the hearing on the merits of the case. If the Court finds that there are (sic) preponderance of evidence to sustain a nullification, then the cause of the petition shall fail. Conversely, if it finds, through the evidence that will be presented during the hearing on the merits, that there are sufficient proofs to warrant nullification, the Court shall declare its nullity

The court denied the opposition of the husband since the Petition complied with the requirements of the law. All in all, except from having the proper grounds of nullity, it is likewise important that the Petition to be submitted in the court be properly pleaded with all the requirements of law. 

---

CLAUDIO GRIPAL REQUINO & ASSOCIATES

Campos Rueda Building, Unit 408
101 Export Drive, Makati City
Tel. No. 290 5898 Fax. No 889 5210
Mobile: +63 918 948 6092
email:atty.claudio.g.requino@live.com.ph

This email and its attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee.  This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged attorney-client communication or otherwise protected from disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this email and any attachments included to the addressee, you may not copy, deliver, or otherwise distribute this email and any attachments included to anyone else.  If you have received this message in error, please notify us by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments from your system.