In Elizabeth A. Alberto v. Jose Luis R. Alberto, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the nuances of psychological incapacity as grounds for declaring a marriage void ab initio. The Court emphasized that such incapacity isn’t merely a mental disorder or personality flaw needing expert testimony but rather a deep-seated, enduring aspect of a person’s personality that makes compliance with essential marital obligations impossible. This ruling reinforces that a spouse’s behavior, stemming from a grave, incurable, and pre-existing condition, can indeed justify the dissolution of a marriage, ensuring that unions founded on such incapacities are not perpetuated under the guise of marital sanctity.

When “I Do” Becomes “I Can’t”: Exploring the Limits of Marital Capacity

Elizabeth A. Alberto sought to nullify her marriage to Jose Luis R. Alberto, citing his psychological incapacity. Elizabeth detailed Jose’s long-standing irresponsibility, substance abuse, bouts of depression, and infidelity. A clinical psychologist, Dr. Rowena R. Belen, diagnosed Jose with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, attributing it to his pampered yet emotionally deprived childhood. Dr. Belen concluded that Jose’s condition rendered him incapable of fulfilling marital obligations.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Elizabeth, declaring the marriage void based on Jose’s psychological incapacity. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, stating that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability of Jose’s condition. Undeterred, Elizabeth elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA had erred in its assessment of the evidence and in disregarding the findings of the RTC.

Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides the legal framework for declaring a marriage void due to psychological incapacity. This provision states:

“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.”

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Tan-Andal v. Andal clarified the interpretation of Article 36. It emphasized that psychological incapacity is not simply a mental disorder that requires expert opinion to prove. Instead, it is a deeply ingrained, durable aspect of a person’s personality structure that manifests in clear acts of dysfunctionality, making it impossible for them to understand and fulfill their essential marital duties. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff-spouse to demonstrate this incapacity through clear and convincing evidence.

The Court also highlighted three key characteristics of psychological incapacity: gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence. Gravity refers to a genuinely serious psychic cause that renders a person incapable of fulfilling marital obligations. Incurability, in a legal sense, means that the incapacity is so enduring and persistent that the couple’s personality structures are incompatible, leading to the inevitable breakdown of the marriage. Juridical antecedence requires that the incapacity existed at the time of the marriage celebration, even if it only became apparent later.

In evaluating psychological incapacity cases, courts give weight to the trial court’s findings, recognizing their unique position in observing the demeanor of witnesses. As the Supreme Court noted in Santos-Gantan v. Gantan, citing Kalaw v. Fernandez:

“Cases have also given weight to trial court’s findings and evaluation on the existence or non-existence of a party’s psychological incapacity. This is in recognition of their unique position of having observed and examined the demeanor of witnesses as they testified in court.”

In the case at hand, the Supreme Court found that the RTC was correct in granting Elizabeth’s petition. The CA had erred in requiring strict expert testimony to prove the psychological incapacity. The Court clarified that while expert opinion is valuable, it is not indispensable. Laypersons who knew the spouse before the marriage can testify about consistently observed behaviors indicative of a serious incapacity to fulfill marital obligations.

The Supreme Court emphasized that failure to interview the respondent-spouse does not invalidate a psychologist’s report. Information from one party can suffice, as marriage involves two individuals. What matters is the totality of evidence, adequately establishing the party’s psychological condition. The Court cited Zamora v. Court of Appeals, stating that:

“[T]he examination of the person by a physician in order for the former to be declared psychologically incapacitated is not a requirement. What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.”

The Supreme Court took note that Dr. Belen had attempted to contact Jose but was unsuccessful. She based her report on interviews with Elizabeth and the couple’s children, as well as psychological tests conducted on Elizabeth.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that Jose’s Narcissistic Personality Disorder, rooted in his childhood, rendered him incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations. This incapacity was characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. His long-standing irresponsibility, substance abuse, infidelity, and lack of concern for his family demonstrated a fundamental inability to understand and adhere to the basic marital covenants of respect, fidelity, love, help, and support.

The court found it significant that Jose had shown his propensity to abuse substances before his marriage to Elizabeth. Further, his inability to maintain a stable job, his reliance on Elizabeth for financial and emotional support, and his engagement in extramarital affairs all pointed to a deep-seated personality disorder that made it impossible for him to be a responsible and supportive husband and father.

The Court further added that:

“[T]he dissolution of marital bonds on the ground of the psychological incapacity of either spouse does not amount to a demolition of the foundation of families. There is actually no marriage to speak of since it is void from the beginning.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 36 should not be interpreted in a way that perpetuates dysfunctional marriages. The Constitution protects marriage as an inviolable social institution, but it also recognizes the need to dissolve unions that are fundamentally flawed due to psychic causes inherent in the spouses. In cases where one spouse is psychologically incapable of fulfilling their marital obligations, the dissolution of the marriage is not a destruction of the family unit but rather a recognition that a true marriage never existed.

FAQs

What is psychological incapacity under Philippine law?	Psychological incapacity is a ground for declaring a marriage void ab initio if a spouse is unable to fulfill essential marital obligations due to a grave, incurable, and pre-existing condition. It is not simply a mental disorder but a deeply ingrained personality trait that makes compliance with marital duties impossible.
Does psychological incapacity require expert testimony to prove?	While expert testimony can be helpful, it is not strictly required. Lay witnesses who observed the spouse’s behavior before the marriage can provide evidence of the incapacity. What is more important is the totality of evidence presented.
What does “gravity” mean in the context of psychological incapacity?	“Gravity” refers to the seriousness of the psychic cause that renders a person incapable of fulfilling marital obligations. It must be a genuinely serious condition, not a mere personality quirk or occasional emotional outburst.
What does “incurability” mean in this context?	“Incurability” means that the incapacity is so enduring and persistent that the couple’s personality structures are incompatible, leading to the inevitable breakdown of the marriage. It is viewed in a legal, not medical, sense.
What does “juridical antecedence” mean?	“Juridical antecedence” means that the psychological incapacity must have existed at the time of the marriage celebration, even if it only became apparent later. It is not something that developed after the marriage.
Is it necessary to interview the respondent-spouse to prove psychological incapacity?	No, it is not always necessary. Information from the petitioner-spouse and other witnesses can be sufficient to establish the incapacity. What matters is the totality of the evidence presented.
How does the court weigh the evidence in psychological incapacity cases?	The court considers all the evidence presented, including testimonies from lay witnesses and expert opinions, if available. The court gives weight to the trial court’s findings, recognizing their unique position in observing the demeanor of witnesses.
What is the effect of declaring a marriage void ab initio?	Declaring a marriage void ab initio means that the marriage is considered invalid from the beginning. It is as if the marriage never existed.

This case underscores the Philippine Supreme Court’s evolving understanding of psychological incapacity, moving away from rigid requirements for expert testimony towards a more holistic evaluation of spousal behavior and its impact on marital obligations. It serves as a reminder that while marriage is a sacred institution, it should not be perpetuated when one spouse’s psychological condition makes it impossible to fulfill the fundamental duties of marriage.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Elizabeth A. Alberto v. Jose Luis R. Alberto and Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 236827, April 19, 2022