Declaration of nullity of marriage in the Philippines on the ground of psychological incapacity a liberal type of divorce? Key Points To Know About Psychological Incapacity as a Ground to Declare a Marriage Void The Basic Law The applicable provision can be found in Article 36 of the Family Code, providing as follows: Art. 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. Key Phrases on Psychological Incapacity 1. A party contracted a marriage 2. At the time of the celebration of the marriage 3. Was Psychologically Incapacitated 4. To comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage 5. Such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. What does it include? As interpreted by Jurisprudence The phrase “psychological incapacity” is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. It refers to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly noncognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity; and render help and support. The intendment of the law has been to confine it to the most serious of cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. (Santos versus Court of Appeals G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20) Accepted Types of Personality Disorders In Te versus Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13,2009, the Honorable Supreme Court recognized the following types: Types of Disorders According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3d ed., rev., 1987), or DSM-III-R, personality disorders are categorized into three major clusters: Cluster A: Paranoid, schizoid and schizotypal personality disorders. Individuals who have these disorders often appear to have odd or eccentric habits and traits. Cluster B: Antisocial, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders. Individuals who have these disorders often appear overly emotional, erratic and dramatic. Cluster C: Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and passive-aggressive personality disorders. Individuals who have these disorders often appear anxious or fearful. The DSM-III-R also lists another category, “personality disorder not otherwise specified,” that can be used for other specific personality disorders or for mixed conditions that do not qualify as any of the specific personality disorders. Individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually have long-term concerns, and thus therapy may be long-term. What are the characteristics to be proved in psychological incapacity? Existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage (known as juridical antecedence). 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. 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. Gravity Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characterological 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.On the other hand, root cause must be identified as a psychological illness Those that do not constitute psychological incapacity. In Ricardo B. Toring v. Teresita M. Toring, G.R. No. 165321, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 389, 408, the Honorable Supreme Court emphasized that irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity, as these may only be due to a person's difficulty, refusal or neglect to undertake the obligations of marriage that is not rooted in some psychological illness that Article 36 of the Family Code addresses. Furthermore, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity (Hernandez versus Hernandez, G.R. No. 126010. December 8,199) According to the Supreme Court, “Mixed personality disorder, the "leaving-the-house" attitude whenever he and Amy quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his band mates than his family, are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage” (G.R. No. 162368. July 17, 2006). While habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity. However, if they are manifestations of a disordered personality which make the party completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state then it may constitute psychological incapacity. If you think of resorting to psychological incapacity as a ground to declare your marriage void engage a counsel of your own choice.
Annulment can be obtained directly through the church without the use of lawyers so long as the grounds for annulment can be proven, it is a very long drawn out process however that can take 6 to 7 years without any guarantee of success..... the grounds for granting an annulment are very narrow and this is the reason for many people relying on the psychological incapacity argument... It still has to be proven that one of the partners was suffering a mental illness at the time of the marriage though.
You are talking about filing the petition in the church tribunal applying canon law but not if you resort to Civil Law then no one can represent himself/herself unless that person has knowledge on the technical requirements and can adequately represent himself/herself. As to the concept of psychological incapacity, Philippine jurisprudence is clear on this thus its not that broad. As discussed, the phrase “psychological incapacity” is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. It refers to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly noncognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity; and render help and support. The intendment of the law has been to confine it to the most serious of cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. (Santos versus Court of Appeals G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20). ONE THING IN CASE OF CHURCH ANNULMENT THAT PERSON REMAINS MARRIED UNDER CIVIL LAW. IN SHORT CHURCH ANNULMENT CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND VICE VERSA CIVIL LAW ANNULMENT IS CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHURCH. FURTHER, IF BY RESORTING TO CIVIL LAW THE CHURCH WILL NOT ALLOW SUBSEQUENT THROUGH THE CHURCH.But since it is the Civil Law that governs family relations then resorting to civil annulment is commonly resorted.
ONE THING IN CASE OF CHURCH ANNULMENT THAT PERSON REMAINS MARRIED UNDER CIVIL LAW. IN SHORT CHURCH ANNULMENT CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND VICE VERSA CIVIL LAW ANNULMENT IS CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHURCH. FURTHER, IF BY RESORTING TO CIVIL LAW THE CHURCH WILL NOT ALLOW SUBSEQUENT THROUGH THE CHURCH.But since it is the Civil Law that governs family relations then resorting to civil annulment is commonly resorted. Thanks for that info solicitor, I was confused by this. As you seem to be well versed in Philippines family law could you give an opinion on whether or not the fact that a person has already gained a church annulment will have any affect on that persons application for a civil annulment? The civil law seems to be based on the church law with regard to marriage annulment, does this mean that the church annulment can be used as evidence in the civil case thus making the granting of a civil annulment a formality ? And also whilst we are on this subject what is your opinion on this....http://www.congress.gov.ph/press/details.php?pressid=6319..... and the chances of it passing through the house and becoming law...???
Interesting to see that the mentioned cases are all based upon DSM -III-R, which is from the year 1987. Currently the (psychological) world uses DSM-IV-TR from the year 2006, which is more explicit and clearer. Question- are there any legal standards in the Philippines, that one MUST use the DSM III - R or can one citate/refer to i.e. DSM-IV in his case ? That would be important in some cases, as some"disorders" have been dropped from the "non treatable" disorders due to evolvement of "science" .
The church annulment has only persuasive effect but not conclusive to the civil courts and vice versa. Even if the decision of the church tribunal granting the annulment will be invoked in the proceedings before civil courts the same has only a persuasive effect but it does not make the proceedings before civil courts a mere formality.In short, the two are distinct proceedings where the parties have to prove their respective causes of action. the decisions on each of the tribunals are separate and distinct.
