SC: Psychological Disorder Can Void Loveless Marriages

By Gerome Dalipe IV

The Supreme Court has ruled that a spouse’s inability to express love due to a diagnosed personality disorder may be considered psychological incapacity and is grounds to declare a marriage void.

In a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Second Division reinstated a lower court ruling that nullified a couple’s 2002 civil marriage.

The husband was diagnosed with passive-aggressive personality disorder, which the court said made him incapable of providing emotional companionship—an essential marital duty.

The couple first married in secret in 2002 and later had a church wedding in 2004.

Due to the husband’s overseas employment in Saudi Arabia, they lived together for only about five of their 14 years of marriage, during which they raised two children amid extended separations and frequent conflict.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to annul the marriage, submitting a psychological evaluation that diagnosed the disorder.

The Regional Trial Court initially granted the petition but reversed its decision after the Office of the Solicitor General raised due-process concerns.

The Court of Appeals upheld the reversal, denying the husband’s appeal.

The Supreme Court overturned the appellate ruling, citing Article 36 of the Family Code, which allows annulment if one spouse is psychologically incapable—due to a deep-rooted personality disorder—of fulfilling marital obligations from the time of the marriage or earlier.

“Loving one’s spouse is an important, if not the most important, essential marital obligation,” the decision said, attributing the husband’s disorder to a strict and emotionally distant upbringing.

The court added that psychological incapacity does not have to be immediately apparent and may emerge years into the marriage, as long as it is pre-existing, grave, and incurable.

“Because [the husband] cannot be compelled to remain in a loveless marriage, the marriage must be voided,” the tribunal concluded.

Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez dissented, saying the husband failed to prove the disorder existed before the marriage and warned against allowing “a mere change of heart” to become legal grounds for annulment.

The ruling highlights the courts’ broader interpretation of psychological incapacity as a legal—not just clinical—standard for assessing a spouse’s ability to meet core marital responsibilities.