11/11/2025
Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code has always been one of the most intricate grounds in family law. It does not seek to end a valid marriage. Rather, it acknowledges that no true marital bond ever existed because one spouse was already incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations from the very beginning.
The ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐ ๐ด๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น, ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐โ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ฏ ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ฒ. This case reflects how courts continue to apply established jurisprudence with both prudence and compassion.
As the Supreme Court held in ๐๐๐ค๐ง๐๐ค ๐ซ๐จ. ๐๐๐ฅ๐ช๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐ค๐ง๐๐ค, ๐.๐. ๐๐ค. 246933, ๐๐๐ง๐๐ 6, 2023:
โIndeed, as long as the totality of the evidence establishes the respondent-spouseโs psychological incapacity, the dissolution of marriage is warranted, as in this case. While it is difficult to pinpoint when the psychological incapacity existed, it is enough that the petitioner-spouse shows that the incapacity, โin all reasonable likelihood,โ already existed at the time the marriage was celebrated.โ
This case reminds us that it is not about the timing of discovery, but the existence of incapacity from the very start.
In ๐พ๐ง๐ช๐ฏ-๐๐๐ฃ๐ช๐ฏ๐ ๐ซ๐จ. ๐๐๐ฃ๐ช๐ฏ๐, ๐
๐ง. ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ช๐๐ก๐๐, ๐.๐. ๐๐ค. 242362, ๐ผ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐ก 17, 2024,
the Court further clarified:
โWhile We are certainly mindful that abandonment, infidelity, and failure to give financial support are not per se constitutive of psychological incapacity, these, however, may be indicative that the respondent-spouse, or husband in this case, is not cognizant of the duties and responsibilities of a husband and father.โ
Similarly, ๐๐๐ก๐ค๐ ๐ซ๐จ. ๐๐๐ก๐ค๐ ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ช๐๐ก๐๐, ๐.๐. ๐๐ค. 231695, ๐๐๐ฉ๐ค๐๐๐ง 6, 2021, emphasized:
โStated differently, respondent-spouseโs unjustified abandonment, neglect, and infidelity towards petitioner-spouse and their children, singly or collectively, manifest psychological incapacity in a legal sense.โ
These pronouncements show that acts such as abandonment or infidelity, though not automatically determinative, can reveal a deeper incapacity to assume the obligations of marriage.
And as profoundly stated by ๐๐ค๐ง๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ค๐ง ๐ผ๐จ๐จ๐ค๐๐๐๐ฉ๐ ๐
๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ก๐๐จ-๐ฝ๐๐ง๐ฃ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ง ๐พ๐ค๐ฃ๐๐ช๐ง๐ง๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฃ๐๐ค๐ฃ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ฃ-๐ผ๐ฃ๐๐๐ก ๐ซ๐จ. ๐ผ๐ฃ๐๐๐ก, ๐.๐. ๐๐ค. 196359, ๐๐๐ง๐๐ 11, 2021:
โAs a final word, We emphasize that in declaring marriages void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but is actually protecting its true purpose. Indeed, in removing a psychologically incapacitated spouse from the union, the State is actually protecting the family, which should still be regarded as the foundation of the nation, regardless of this eventual disposition. Truly, while the Constitution depicts marriage as an inviolable social institution, its inviolability should not mean an absolutist resistance to sever the marital bonds. Indeed, equity, prudence, and fairness dictate that the inviolability envisioned by the Constitution should pertain only to marriages that are valid, and not those that are null and void from the beginning.โ
The heart of the law, then, is ๐ฃ๐ค๐ฉ ๐๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ง๐ช๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ ๐๐ช๐ฉ ๐ฅ๐ง๐ค๐ฉ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ, ensuring that the concept of marriage remains genuine, mutual, and founded on true consent and capacity.
Grateful always for Godโs guidance and for the continued trust of clients who seek truth, freedom, and peace through the law.
