SINCE last week, I have been receiving e-mails asking for legal advice about the rules on the nullity of marriage. Most of them are a bit confused because of the new ruling about psychological incapacity.
The grounds for nullity of marriage are enumerated in Chapter 3 of the Family Code. These are called void and voidable marriages. Other grounds are when one of the spouses is underage; the spouses are siblings or ascendants or descendants of any degree; the marriage was solemnized by a person not authorized to perform marriage; or a case of mistaken identity.
It has been months since the Supreme Court en banc in the case of Rosanna L. Tan-Andal v. Mario Victor M. Andal (G.R. No. 196356, May 11, 2021) issued a unanimous decision regarding psychological incapacity. The said decision modified the interpretation of the requirements of psychological incapacity as a ground for nullity of marriage found in Article 36 of the Family Code.
For the benefit of everyone, let us revisit the SC ruling and how it defined psychological incapacity.
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 the case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, psychological incapacity is defined as a personal condition that prevents a spouse from complying with fundamental marital obligations toward a specific partner and that may have existed at the time of marriage but became evident only through behavior subsequent to the marriage ceremony.
The testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory. This may result in shortening the process of the annulment proceedings.
Previously, proof of the permanence and incurability of the condition had been required in court. However, in the recent ruling, psychological incapacity is a condition that need not be a mental or personality disorder, or a permanent and incurable condition.
And from the words of Associate Justice Marivic M.V.F. Leonen who penned the decision: “To be clear, our collective hope is that who chooses marriage realizes that the other deserves more caring, more compassion, more kindness in the daily and banal grind of their relationship. It is in these same values of sacrifice and empathy that we will have the chance to evolve into a society that is more humane, and eventually, more just.”
In our country there are only two options to get out of a marriage: annulment and legal separation./PN
