“In light of the Court’s fundamental paradigm shift in viewing psychological incapacity as a purely legal, rather than a medical concept, the understanding of the requisites in determining psychological incapacity, namely, juridical antecedence, incurability, and gravity, must be refined accordingly.
With regard to the requisite of incurability, it must now be recognized that psychological incapacity is incurable only in the legal (not medical)sense in that the incapacity is “so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.” In order for the said requisite to obtain, there must be “[]a undeniable pattern of of a persisting failure to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse that must be established as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.”
Meanwhile, the requisite of gravity in psychological incapacity must be such that it is caused by a genuinely psychic cause and not just “mild characterological peculiarities, mood changers [or] occasional emotional outbursts” nor mere “refusal, neglect[,] difficulty, much less ill will.” As such, “a deeper and fuller assessment of the alleged incapacity must be done such that it is clearly and convincingly shown that the fulfillment of the essential marital obligations is not merely feigned or cumbersome but rather, practically impossible, because of the distinct psychological makeup of the person relative to his or her spouse.”
Lastly, the requisite of juridical antecedence (which-to note-is explicitly necessitated by the phrase “at the time of the celebration of the marriage” in Article 36 means that the incapacity is determined to exist during the time of the celebration. While it may indeed be difficult — if not scientifically impossible — to determine the existence of psychological incapacity at the exact point in time that the coupe exchanged their “I dos,” it is sufficient, however, that the petitioner demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the incapacity, in all reasonable likelihood, already exists at the time of the marriage’s celebration. To determine the reasonable likelihood its existence at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the Court in TanAndal, held that “proof of juridically antecedent psychological incapacity may consist of testimonies describing the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to a particular behavior.”
Moreover, the concept of juridical antecedence must be understood to include the ordinary experiences of the spouses not only prior to the marriage itself, but more importantly, during their”lived conjugal life” together since, as the law itself states, a marriage can be declared null and void under Article 36 ‘even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”As the parties have yet to assume any of the essential marital obligations prior to being married, the Court discerns that the experience of marriage itself is the litmus test of self-realization, reflecting one’s true psychological makeup as to whether or not he or she was indeed capable of assuming the essential marital obligations to his or her spouse at the time the marriage was entered into.
Therefore, in order to determine the judicial antecedence, “judges must reconstruct the marital decision-making process of an individual, just like inquisitive investigators. The judge must trace back and examine all the manifestations before and during marriage to find out if such non-fulfillment relates to the intrinsic psychological makeup of the person relative to his or her specific partner, and not just some mere difficulty that ordinary spouses, at some point in time, are bound to go though
Overall, the focus should be on the manifestations during the marriage itself since, as intended by Canon Law from which psychological incapacity was patterned after, the lived conjugal life is that which provides a confirmation of the original consent or its absence at the time of the marriage’s celebration. Since there is nos no way to determine the existence of psychological incapacity at the exact point that vows were exchanged, it is enough that it exists at such time on all reasonable likelihood. This is determined, in turn, by the manifestations and circumstances attending before, and most significantly, during the marriage. (Underscoring supplied, emphases omitted).[1]
[1] Cayabyab-Navarrosa v. Navarrosa, G.R. No. 216655, April 20, 2022, cited in Clavecilla v. Clavecilla and Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 228127, March 6, 2023