16/05/2026
SUPREME COURT REITERATES: EXPERT TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED IN NULLITY OF MARRIAGE CASES INVOLVING PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
The Supreme Court (SC) reiterated that psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullification of marriage is a legal, and not a medical concept, which does not require a clinical diagnosis or expert testimony as its determination focuses on the incurable personality differences of spouses that make them incapable of complying with essential marital obligations.
In a 32-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the SC’s First Division declared null and void the marriage of a husband and wife who claimed that they are unhappy throughout their almost 30 years of marriage, after finding both parties psychologically incapacitated to comply with their marital obligations.
The husband and wife met and became friends while they were college students. After graduation, they remained in contact and grew closer when they both attended a six-week training program. They were eventually hired by a bank. In May 1981, they officially considered themselves a couple. As officemates, they spent at least 10 hours together each day. The wife eventually got pregnant, which prompted them to get married in September 1983.
During the period of their wedding preparations, the wife noticed that the husband showed little concern for her pregnancy. He did not accompany her to her regular prenatal checkups, prompting her to ask her friends to go with her instead. The wife began to harbor reservations about their relationship, sensing a lack of affection from the husband, who was emotionally never expressive. The wife wondered whether they were marrying out of love or merely because of her pregnancy.
Despite these doubts, the wife did not express her concerns and ultimately decided to proceed with the wedding. After the wedding, the couple lived in the house of the husband's parents. The birth of their daughter introduced new challenges to their married life, particularly in their differing approaches to parenting. The husband would often tell the wife that she was spoiling their daughter whenever she devoted time and attention.
Since they are living with the parents of the husband, the mother of the husband intervenes by exerting considerable influence over her husband. The wife also felt that he would never oppose his mother and that his mother's presence intruded permanently into their married life. The wife attempted to persuade the husband to move out of his parents' home. When the husband relayed this plan to his mother, she rejected it, and eventually the husband complied with her decision.
In 1987, the wife finally gathered the resolve to tell the husband that she was unhappy in their marriage and wished to live separately. The husband did not engage her in any meaningful discussion and responded with silence. A year after, the husband obtained employment in the United States.
While working abroad, the wife and their daughter visited the husband in the United States and spent Christmas together. The husband did not make any effort to reconcile or rekindle the relationship. Their time together in the United States mirrored the routine life they had in the Philippines. There were no romantic moments between them nor any bonding moments as a family.
The wife narrated that from 1989 to 2005, the husband only sent approximately $200 to $300 for the educational expenses of their daughter. Throughout these years, the husband did not maintain any stable and consistent communication with them.
In 1994, the husband filed for divorce in the United States. He admitted that he did so out of frustration and in the hope that it would prompt the wife to reconcile. However, the wife remained resolute, and the divorce was eventually granted.
In 2007, the husband returned to the Philippines permanently. He occasionally visited the wife in her house. He later told her that one of his reasons for returning was to attempt to rekindle their marriage. However, the wife refused because she felt that after all those years of separation, there was no marriage left to revive.
This prompted her to file a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of their psychological incapacity.
The Regional Trial Court granted the petition despite the opposition of the husband. When elevated to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court reversed the RTC ruling and denied the petition. However, the CA, in a motion for reconsideration, abandoned its first ruling and declared the marriage null and void due to the psychological incapacity of both the husband and wife.
In upholding the said ruling, the high court found that all the requisites of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, as laid down in the landmark case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, were sufficiently established in the case.
It held that the parties’ psychological incapacities were characterized by juridical antecedence, even if these manifested only after the marriage. It further ruled that the conditions are incurable in the legal sense, as they are deeply rooted, enduring, and persistent, ultimately rendering the marriage beyond repair.
The SC likewise emphasized that the incapacities were grave, arising from genuinely psychological causes, and could not be attributed merely to refusal, neglect, or ordinary marital difficulties.
It also gave weight to the psychological assessment conducted by a clinical psychologist, which found both spouses psychologically incapacitated. The wife was diagnosed with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, while the husband was diagnosed with Inadequate Personality Disorder, coupled with masculine strivings to the degree of an Oedipal complex.
The highest bench noted that the opposing personality structures of the spouses made them incapable of complying with the essential marital obligations. It added that their psychological incapacity greatly undermined their marital union.
"As the Court emphasized in Tan-Andal vs. Andal, the law protects the institution of marriage not by insisting on its preservation at all costs but by distinguishing true marriages from those that, from their inception, lacked the essential psychological foundations for mutual commitment, intimacy, and shared life," the Supreme Court said.
