"The psychological incapacity of Vincent was sufficiently established in compliance with Article 36 of the Family Code
Article 36 of the Family Code governs psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage.83 Article 36 provides:
Article 36. 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.84
Psychological incapacity, as a ground to declare the nullity of marriage, is fundamentally characterized by its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.85
Initially, the Court, in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina86 laid down the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code:
1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability[,] and solidarity.
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear[,] and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect[,] or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221[,] and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence[,] and included in the text of the decision.
7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:
"The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature."
Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on evidence — what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.
This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church — while remaining independent, separate[,] and apart from each other — shall walk together in synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family as the inviolable base of the nation.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within [ ] 15 days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.87
However, the overly rigid interpretation of the Molina guidelines has resulted in the dismissal of petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, denying many individuals a fair chance at judicial relief and closure.
Thus, the Court, in Tan-Andal v. Andal,88 modified the Molina guidelines and ruled:
[The] Court now categorically abandons the second Molina guideline. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.
Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations.
. . . .
Difficult to prove as it may be, a party to a nullity case is still required to prove juridical antecedence because it is an explicit requirement of the law. Article 36 is clear that the psychological incapacity must be existing "at the time of the celebration" of the marriage, "even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." This distinguishes psychological incapacity from divorce. Divorce severs a marital tie for causes, psychological or otherwise, that may have developed after the marriage celebration.
. . . .
[W]e hold that the psychological incapacity contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code is incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; hence, the third Molina guideline is amended accordingly. This means that the incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. "[A]n undeniable pattern of such persisting failure [to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse] must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other."
With respect to gravity, the requirement is retained, not in the sense that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be a serious or dangerous illness, but that "mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" are excluded. The psychological incapacity cannot be mere "refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will." In other words, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause.89 (Citations omitted)
The Tan-Andal guidelines were summarized in Georfo v. Republic,90 as follows:
First, Tan-Andal established that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and convincing evidence based on the presumption of validity of marriage. It requires more than preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Second, Tan-Andal abandoned the guideline in Molina requiring the root cause of the psychological incapacity to be medically or clinically identified.
Tan-Andal delved into the history and intent behind Article 36 and found that psychological incapacity is not tantamount to mental incapacity. Rejecting the proposal to include the term "mentally incapacitated," the Family Code Commissioners agreed that psychological incapacity is not a mere vice of consent. Neither is psychological incapacity a personality disorder. It is not a mental disorder identified in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Still, psychologists and psychiatrists are compelled "to assign a personality disorder and pathologize the supposedly psychologically incapacitated spouse" to comply with the second Molina guideline.
This Court now requires a proof of a person's "personality structure" which makes it impossible for them to understand and comply with their marital obligations:
There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.
Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations.
This approach is consistent with the Family Code Commissioners' intent to limit psychological incapacity to "psychic causes." Moreover, it does away with the cruel and dehumanizing exercise of labelling a person as having a mental disorder in order to nullify a marriage.
Third, in light of the shift in viewing psychological incapacity as a legal concept, the three characteristics of psychological incapacity are restated.
Juridical antecedence is established by showing that the psychological incapacity exists at the time of the celebration, even if it only manifests during the marriage. It may be proven by "testimonies describing the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to a particular behavior."
While it is difficult to pinpoint when the psychological incapacity existed, it is enough that the petitioner show that the incapacity, "in all reasonable likelihood," already exists at the time the marriage was celebrated. Since the spouses will only assume marital obligations after the marriage, their psychological capacity to fulfill those obligations will only manifest after the celebration of the marriage.
Incurability must be viewed in the legal, not medical, sense. Veering away from the medical orientation, the third Molina guideline was amended. Psychological incapacity is not a medical illness which can be cured: it must be "so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage."
To satisfy the requirement of incurability, there must be a showing of an "undeniable pattern of such persisting failure to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse [that] must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other."
The requirement on the gravity of the psychological incapacity was retained, which must be "caused by a genuinely psychic cause." It must not be mere "mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts," nor "mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, much less ill will."91 (Citations omitted)
Here, the Court affirms the CA's finding that Theresa clearly and convincingly established the requisites of juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability.
Juridical antecedence was established
The Republic, through the OSG, asserts that Theresa failed to establish juridical antecedence. It underscores that the testimonies of Theresa's witnesses concerning Vincent's behavior prior to the marriage is the result of collusion. Consequently, the Republic maintains that such testimonies should not be given probative value in determining the presence of juridical antecedence.92
As already discussed, the Court does not agree.
There is no evidence of collusion between Theresa and Vincent. Therefore, the testimonies of Vincent's father and cousin, who witnessed his childhood, not to mention Vincent's own interview results with Dr. Alhama, should be given credence in determining Vincent's psychological incapacity.
Vincent's father and cousin testified that the breakdown of the marriage between Theresa and Vincent stemmed from Vincent's long-standing behavioral issues and vices, which had been evident long before he ever met Theresa.93 This conclusion was likewise supported by Dr. Alhama in her Psychological Evaluation Report.
While it is recognized that a psychological report is not indispensable in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, Theresa nonetheless presented Dr. Alhama as a witness to Vincent's psychological condition. Notably, Dr. Alhama was able to conduct a comprehensive psychological assessment and evaluation of both Theresa and Vincent. She administered six psychological tests to both parties, conducted in-depth clinical interviews, and required them to answer self-assessment questionnaires. Additionally, Dr. Alhama gathered collateral information from other sources, which allowed her to submit an informed expert opinion on the matter.94
Based on her assessment, Dr. Alhama concluded that the onset of Vincent's personality disorders dates back to early childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. She attributed their development to the dysfunctional relationship between his parents, particularly Vicente's infidelity and irresponsibility as a father, thus:
As with many personality disorders, the root cause of these are a complex mixture of biological vulnerabilities, early childhood experiences, and psychological factors.
[Vincent's] childhood development was gravely altered by the early separation of his parents. The figure of an irresponsible father, his drunkard and unfaithful personality, drove him to replica[te] of his childhood experiences from his parents. As neglect and poverty ushered their lives, such startling experiences made him a person looking for diversions of his family's fissures. These are psychologically startling experiences that contributed much to his personality disorders. His experience of neglect, exposure to harsh life, cemented a totality of personality structure that made him the person of today.
In this case, the development of ADP, NPD, and HPD features is a product of his startling experiences and was ingressed by his dealing with other people. His personality disorders are mirrored by his childhood occurrences, like his unconscious attribution of his father's maladaptive behaviors and the psychologically abusive acts he witnessed during his childhood.
In the interviews conducted, it was fully established that the personality disorders of [Vincent] could be solidly attributed to juridical antecedence tracing back to early life experiences, and magnified by his wrong or incomplete nurture. His antisocial, [n]arcissistic[,] and histrionic nature is a product of his "mirror" psyche frame to his family and social dealings.
With the foregoing, it is concluded then that his personality disorders speak of ANTECEDENCE as it has an early onset, with an enduring pattern and behavior that deviates markedly from the norm. As shown by testimonies and documents, the narcissistic, histrionic[,] and antisocial manifestations existed before the marriage.
Conclusively, the root cause then of the personality disorder (APD with strong NPD features) can be attributed to starting experiences during his early childhood years with predisposing psychosocial factors that influenced the development resulting from the absence of parenting direction.
. . . .
[Vincent's] maladaptive behaviors show severe personality disorder and such is adversely rooted in his personality structure that effectively incapacitates him from accepting and complying with the obligations essential to his marriage with [Theresa]. By means of vicarious learning, he imitated the disposition of his father and immediate community. He learned uncanny behaviors from an ambivalent place and were not corrected and transcended into a very under discerning behavior until he became an adult. Such ill-disposition was carried out until he got married with [Theresa]. Because of his inability to discern the consequences of his actions, he acted upon his [ill]-driven tendencies and earthly desires while inflicting physical, economic[,] and psychological harm to his wife and his children.95 (Citations omitted)
Further, Theresa testified that Vincent was a jealous and possessive partner who stalked her and threatened to kill anyone who came between them. He lacked direction, spent most of his time drinking with friends, and showed no improvement after marriage. He failed to provide for the family and responded with violence to any criticism.96
The concept of juridical antecedence includes the ordinary experiences of the spouses not only prior to the marriage itself, but more importantly, during their "lived conjugal life."97 Theresa's testimony about her experiences with Vincent, both as a girlfriend and a wife, sufficiently demonstrates that his psychological incapacity was already present at the time of their marriage.
Gravity was proven
Vincent's psychological incapacity is grave and rooted in a genuinely psychic cause, thereby rendering him incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage. Dr. Alhama's Psychological Evaluation Report revealed that Vincent suffers from three personality disorders:(1) Narcissistic Personality Disorder; (2) Antisocial Personality Disorder; and (3) Histrionic Personality Disorder.98
According to Dr. Alhama's Psychological Evaluation Report, the manifestation of Vincent's Narcissistic Personality Disorder are the following:
1. grandiose sense of self-centeredness and self-importance;
2. too much sense of entitlement;
3. interpersonally exploitative and abusive;
4. lacks empathy and care;
5. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors[,] and attitudes; and
6. enduring pattern of deviance.99
With respect to Antisocial Personality Disorder, Dr. Alhama found that the common manifestations are:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest and legal sanctions;
2. severe and persistent deceitfulness to exploit others;
3. inherent disregard for right and wrong;
4. grave irresponsibility and impulsivity[,] and failure to plan ahead;
5. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical abuses, fights[,] and assaults;
6. callous unconcern for the feeling of others towards his actions;
7. lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others;
8. distorted and irrational thoughts.100
As for Vincent's Histrionic Personality Disorder, Dr. Alhama found it is manifested by:
1. violent behavior and is highly an attention-seeker;
2. interaction with others is oftenly characterized by inappropriate provocative behavior;
3. indications of self-harm;
4. displays rapidly shifting and shallow expressions of emotions; and
5. irrational thoughts, pathological lying[,] and apathy.101
The harrowing experiences of Theresa during her marriage with Vincent, as well as their history even as boyfriend and girlfriend, illustrate the gravity of Vincent's psychological incapacity. The most compelling evidence of this is his complete failure to comprehend and fulfill his fundamental responsibilities as a husband and father.
As the records show, Vincent consistently refused to seek or maintain employment, prioritizing time with his friends over the needs of his family. He failed to provide both moral and financial support to Theresa and their son. Worse still, he demanded money from Theresa to fund his vices.102 These actions reflect a profound disregard for, and complete lack of understanding of, his responsibilities as a husband and father.
Incurability is demonstrated
As discussed above, Tan-Andal redefined the concept of incurability, shifting its interpretation from a medical to a legal context.103
As provided in Tan-Andal, to satisfy the requirement of incurability, there must be a showing of an "undeniable pattern of such persisting failure to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse that must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other."104
Here, Vincent's psychological incapacity is incurable, as his maladaptive behaviors have become deeply ingrained and constitute permanent aspects of his personality. These impairments pervade all areas of his life, including his roles as a spouse and father.
Throughout the marriage, Vincent consistently failed to provide Theresa with any form of emotional support or affection. Notably, just weeks after their wedding, he abruptly disappeared without informing Theresa of his whereabouts. He remained both physically and emotionally absent throughout the duration of her pregnancy. In addition, Vincent demonstrated persistent financial irresponsibility, prioritizing personal vices over the welfare of his family.105 These actions reflect a consistent and undeniable pattern of failure on the part of Vincent to fulfill the fundamental obligations of a spouse: to be present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive. Taken together, these behaviors underscore the incurable nature of Vincent's psychological incapacity.
Conclusion
Given the totality of evidence, the Court finds no reason to overturn the CA Decision finding Vincent psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations to Theresa. Consequently, their marriage is void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
A final note. The Court acknowledges that marriage is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution106 that the State is duty-bound to protect. Yet, it cannot turn a blind eye to the lived realities of individuals trapped in unions with psychologically incapacitated spouses. Marriage, in its truest form, must be a sanctuary: a space of mutual respect, care, and emotional safety. It must never become a chain that binds a person to a relationship that is not only fundamentally flawed, but damaging. While the ideal remains that individuals choose wisely in love and commitment, the reality is that human beings make mistakes. When a marriage has become irreparably broken, the spouses so deeply incompatible as to render its continued existence unjust, the Court should not stand in the way.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, is DENIED. The Decision, dated May 16, 2024, and the Resolution, dated October 30, 2024, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 121444, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
G.R. No. 276986, February 03, 2026
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
vs.
MA. THERESA RAMORAN-WONG AND VINCENT L. WONG,
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2026/feb2026/gr_276986_2026.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
