Recent decisions on psychological incapacity

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

Still without a divorce law, the Philippines is making baby steps to get there in terms of legislation.

For now, uncoupling means to go through the rigorous and litigious process of filing a petition for nullity of marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the New Family Code.

While eluding a clear definition since the passage of the New Family Code on August 03, 1988, psychological incapacity as envisaged under Article 36 had now  evolved from recent jurisprudence as a more tangible concept.

The game changer is                Rosanna L. Tan-Andal v. Mario Victor M. Andal, G.R. No. 196359. May 11, 2021. Sitting en banc (meaning “full bench”, or the entire Supreme Court- not a division), the Supreme Court concluded in Tan-Andal that psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not a medical one.

Guided by Tan-Andal, Agnes Padrique Georfo v. Republic of the Philippines and Joe-Ar Jabian Georfo, G.R. No. 246933, which came down on March 6, 2023, then held that:

“Psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not an illness which has to be medically or clinically identified. Therefore, psychiatric examination is no longer required in Article 36 petitions. In cases where a psychiatric report is offered as an expert’s opinion, the psychiatric evaluation of the alleged incapacitated spouse is not indispensable. The psychiatric evaluation may be based on collateral information or other sources”.

        Thus, even without bolstering the petition for nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code with the examination, diagnosis, prognosis and expert opinion of a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, psychological incapacity may still be proved.

Harkening Tan-Andal,  the essential requirements to be proven in an Article 36 petition were summarized in Maria Vicia Carullo-Padua v. Joselito Padua, G.R. No. 208258. April 27, 2022, thus: 

“(1) The psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration of marriage;

(2) Caused by a durable aspect of one’s personality structure, one that was formed prior to their marriage;

(3) Caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause; and,

(4) Proven by clear and convincing evidence.”

Granting that the petitioner in a nullity of marriage case under Article 36 has the means to engage a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist to diagnose the affliction of a psychological malady on either or both spouses, such is still allowed. Yet, it was held that the “psychiatric evaluation of the alleged incapacitated spouse is not indispensable”. (Agnes Padrique Georfo v. Republic of the Philippines, Ibid). This means that should the estranged spouse refuse to be interviewed during the psychiatric evaluation, such would not affect the legal viability of the petition for nullity of marriage.

Instead, the tell-tale signs of the psychological illness of the other spouse may be established by “other collateral information”. These may come from interviews with witnesses who had the opportunity to closely observe the estranged spouse prior to the marriage. Thus, in Agnes Padrique Georfo v. Republic of the Philippines, Ibid, it was further stated that the testimonies coming solely from family members of the petitioner against the other spouse, cannot be undervalued or dismissed altogether. The principle of bias in favor of the petitioner by his/ her witness, does not apply in Article 36 petitions.

Finally, it begs to ask: what if the petitioner in an Article 36 petition is the one found to be psychologically incapacitated? Will it not disqualify him/ her?

Answer: the well-settled rule is that “good faith or bad faith is immaterial in a void marriage”. Thus, as held in Clavecilla v. Clavecilla, G.R. No. 228127. March 6, 2023, “Either spouse, whether psychologically incapacitated or not, may initiate a petition to declare the nullity of their marriage. The law only requires that the petition contains specific allegations of the incapacity of either or both spouses from complying with the essential marital obligations. The doctrine of unclean hands will not bar a psychologically incapacitated spouse from filing such petition.”

Indeed, “psychological incapacity” as a ground to undo a marriage is a lot tougher than mere divorce; because in divorce, mere incompatibility or any disagreement which cropped up during the marriage may serve as ground. But in “psychological incapacity”, the psychological aberration must be proven to have existed prior to the marriage.

Yet jurisprudence is now sanguinely becoming more realistic in treating psychological incapacity cases.

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).