Annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage is one of where the Supreme Court changed its mind frequently. Form a very rigid interpretation to a more liberal view on the matter, the Court’s behavior is a testament to the lack of a single standard as to what constitutes “psychological incapacity”. According to one expert, it is either the Philippines has the most strict or liberal divorce laws in the world. The Family Code (Article 36) does not provide as to what constitutes psychological incapacity. This resulted in the change of mind of the SC in several cases involving the question of psychological incapacity.
Kalaw vs. Fernandez
The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision declaring the marriage between Valerio Kalaw and Ma. Elena Fernandez null and void on the ground that the latter is suffering from psychologically incapacity. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and the Supreme Court in its 19 September 2011 decision agreed with the CA. The SC in agreeing with the CA said that the RTC’s decision “lacks legal and factual basis” and that petitioner “presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently proven” (G.R. No. 166357 January 14, 2015). Not wanting to give up, the petitioner Valerio filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court and in one of the rare instances, granted the motion.
Psychological Incapacity
The Court took another look at what constitutes psychological incapacity. It also re-emphasized the rule in placing great weight in the trial court’s evaluation of evidences presented before it. The High Court once again said: ”psychological incapacity” should 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 which, as so 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”. In its earlier decision, the Court did not give credence to the testimony of the expert witnesses because their testimony “were solely based on the petitioner’s version of the events”. “After a long and hard second look, we consider it improper and unwarranted to give to such expert opinions a merely generalized consideration and treatment, least of all to dismiss their value as inadequate basis for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage”. The Supreme Court then decided to grant Valerio’s petition and declared his marriage with Ma. Elena null and void by reason of psychological incapacity.
