“Psychological incapacity” na dahilan sa paghihiwalay ng mag-asawa

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | April 16, 2021

Dear Chief Acosta,

Madalas kong naririnig at nababasa ang katagang “psychological incapacity” na ginagamit sa pakikipaghiwalay ng mag-asawa. Mayroon bang legal na basehan ang katagang ito? – Venice

Dear Venice,

Mayroong iba’t ibang sanhi ng pagpapawalang-bisa ng kasal sa ilalim ng Family Code of the Philippines. Ang mga ito ay partikular na nakasaad sa Article 35, 36, 37, 38 at 45 ng nasabing batas.

Ang katagang “psychological incapacity” ay mababanaag sa Article 36 ng nasabing batas na kung saan nakasaad ang sumusunod:

“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.”

Bagama’t hindi partikular na nagsaad ng depenisyon ang ating batas kung ano ang “psychological incapacity,” nabigyang-linaw naman ng Korte Suprema kung ano ang mga legal na sangkap upang masabing mayroong “psychological incapacity” ang isa o parehong partido sa kasal, na siyang dahilan ng pagpapawalang-bisa ng kanilang kasal:

“Santos v. Court of Appeals solidified the jurisprudential foundation of the principle that the factors characterizing psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations are: (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, and (3) incurability. We explained:

The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved” (Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes vs. Ramon Reyes, G.R. No. 185286, August 18, 2010, Ponente: Honorable former Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura).

Maliban dito, bagama’t kakailanganin ng medikal na pagsusuri ng mga eksperto tulad ng mga psychiatrists, ang hukuman pa rin ang magdedetermina kung maaari bang ipawalang-bisa ang kasal batay sa “psychological incapacity”:

“Article 36 does not define what psychological incapacity means. It left the determination of the same solely to the Court on a case to case basis.

x x x

x x x

All told, it is wise to be reminded of the caveat articulated by Justice Teodoro R. Padilla in his separate statement in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina:

x x x Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. In the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on "all fours" with another case. The trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.” (Id.)

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang inyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na inyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng inyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.