Dear PAO,
I was married on June 7, 1990. My husband and I, however, have been separated in fact since 1996. I was a battered wife. Many times during our marriage, my husband would punch and box me.

Sometimes, he would deprive me and our two children of financial support. I have reported the series of battery to the police but I opted not to file a case against my husband. Instead, in 1996 I left him at our rented house. I brought with me our two children and since then, we have not heard from him.

These circumstances in my life made me think about psychological incapacity in relation to annulment. Can I use psychological incapacity as a ground for the annulment of my marriage?
Lidia

Dear Lidia,
Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is one of the grounds for the declaration of nullity of marriage. Please take note that psychological incapacity is not a ground for the annulment of marriage. In Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000, the Supreme Court said: “[v]oidable and void marriages are not identical. A marriage that is annul[l]able is valid until otherwise declared by the court; whereas a marriage that is void ab initio is considered as having never to have taken place and cannot be the source of rights . . . Void marriages have no legal effects except those declared by law concerning the properties of the alleged spouses, regarding co-ownership or ownership through actual joint contribution, and its effect on the children born to such void marriages as provided in Article 50 in relation to Articles 43 and 44 as well as Articles 51, 53 and 54 of the Family Code. On the contrary, the property regime governing voidable marriages is generally conjugal partnership and the children conceived before its annulment are legitimate.”

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, 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.

In Marable vs. Marable, G.R. No. 178741, January 17, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that “the term ‘psychological incapacity’ to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. These are the disorders that result in the utter insensitivity or inability of the afflicted party to give meaning and significance to the marriage he or she has contracted. Psychological incapacity must refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.”

In Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997), the Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36. The Court held:

(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.

(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.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of 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.

(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.

(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.”

In filing a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with psychological incapacity as a ground, there has to be a Psychological Report from a psychologist finding either or both of the petitioner and respondent as psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.

With regard to your inquiry—as to whether the fact that you were a battered wife and that you have been deprived of financial support makes your husband psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations—the answer to it would depend on the findings of the psychologist. The psychologist may or may not conclude that being a battered wife and the deprivation of financial support by your husband makes the latter psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. If the psychologist concludes in the affirmative, then the report must show that the psychological incapacity of your husband is grave, incurable, and has juridical antecedence or that it has existed before, during, and after the celebration of your marriage. In the end, it is up to the appreciation of the Court, after all documentary and testimonial evidence are presented and formally offered, to determine whether or not your marriage is null and void, on the basis of the psychological incapacity of your husband.

Note, however, that in the case of Aurelio vs. Aurelio (G.R. No. 175367, June 6, 2011), the Supreme Court said that the provisions of Article 36 should be interpreted on a case-to-case basis. The Court said: “Let it be remembered that each case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own attendant facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.