In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has accorded legal standing to “psychological incapacity” as grounds to annul a marriage, at the same time clarifying that it does not fall in the paradigm of a mental or personality disorder.
This means the testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist is not always needed, the Supreme Court Public Information Center said in a press briefer.
In a joint ruling by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen in the case of Tan-Andal v Andal, SC magistrates on Tuesday amended the interpretation of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Article 36 provides that 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.”
“The Court pronounced that psychological incapacity is not a medical but a legal concept. It refers to a personal condition that prevents a spouse to comply with fundamental marital obligations only in relation to a specific partner that may exist at the time of the marriage but may have revealed through behavior subsequent to the ceremonies,” the SC press briefer said.
“It need not be a mental or personality disorder. It need not be a permanent and incurable condition. Therefore, the testimony of psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases. The totality of the evidence must show clear and convincing evidence to cause the declaration of nullity of marriage,” it added.
While Art. 36 of the Family Code does not define psychological incapacity, prevailing Supreme Court cases considered it a medical condition.
The 1995 case of Santos v. CA said psychological incapacity should refer to “no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage…”
