19/01/2026
โฌ๏ธ
PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION NOT INDISPENSABLE IN PROVING PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AS GROUND FOR MARRIAGE NULLITYโSUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that a psychiatric report or evaluation is not the key evidence in proving psychological incapacity, stressing that what must be proven through the totality of evidence is an enduring personality trait that renders a spouse incapable of performing essential marital obligations.
In a 16-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC's Second Division granted the petition of Milagrosa Villarey Kusk to nullify her marriage to her Danish husband, Torben Kusk, on the ground of their psychological incapacities.
Their love story started when they met in 1992. Torben later on expressed his intention to marry Milagrosa and vowed that he would provide her with a good life. Milagrosa, then 31 years old and with a child from another man, was enticed by Torben's promise and agreed to go with him to Denmark.
Subsequently, Milagrosa was granted a Danish visa, which allowed her to fly to Denmark and start living with Torben. In November 1992, they got married. A day after their wedding, Torben punched Milagrosa in the face while he was drunk. It was the first time Torben hit her, but he apologized the day after.
In 1993, Milagrosa and Torben migrated to the Philippines and started a small business. Over the next two years, Torben acquainted himself with new individuals and became more familiar with the local environment. He also began frequenting bars and typically returned home between 3 and 5 a.m.
In April 1995, Torben arrived drunk at their home at 3 a.m. and slapped Milagrosa on the face, which she later reported to the Women's Desk of the Philippine National Police. After learning of the complaint filed against him by Milagrosa, Torben left her and never returned to their home.
Almost 10 years after Torben left her, Milagrosa attempted to look for him by going to the Danish Embassy, but she failed to get any information.
In 2007, she found out that Torben was still in the Philippines and living with different women. This paved the way for her to file a petition for nullification of their marriage.
Milagrosa presented a psychologist's report, which found that Torben was suffering from passive aggressive personality disorder with underlying antisocial personality disorder. Meanwhile, she was likewise diagnosed to be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Milagrosa's petition, which was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled that while Torben's violence may be considered as abnormal behavior, this, in itself, is not equivalent to psychological incapacity.
The CA likewise stressed Milagrosa failed to show the link between the acts of psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder, which should have existed before they were married. This prompted her to elevate the case before the Supreme Court. The SC released a resolution directing Torben to file a comment but received no reply.
In declaring the marriage of Milagrosa and Torben as void from the beginning, the high court noted that Milagrosa was able to sufficiently prove that both of them were psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their essential marital obligations.
It explained that their psychological incapacities are apparent in their inability to communicate effectively and resolve their conflicts to maintain a stable relationship, which was bolstered by expert testimony that confirmed the presence of deep-seated psychological issues.
The highest bench also highlighted that psychological or medical examination of a spouse is not required as a condition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, as psychological incapacity should be viewed in the legal and not medical perspective, which should be determined through all the evidence presented.
"The evidence presented by Milagrosa convincingly demonstrates that both she and Torben were psychologically incapable of fulfilling their essential marital obligations. Both parties were unable to comply with the basic marital covenants, such as the mutual obligation to live together, observe love, respect, and fidelity, and render help and support to each other," the Supreme Court said.
