PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

There is no exact definition for psychological incapacity, but it was defined by the Supreme Court as 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. The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to
the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. (Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, Jan. 4, 1995)
The requisites of psychological incapacity are as follows:
1. Juridical antecedence must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although overt manifestations may arise
only after such marriage.
2. Gravity grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essental marital obligations.
3. Permanence or incurability must be incurable. If curable, the cure should be beyond the means of the parties involved.
Following are some instances where allegations of psychological incapicity were not sustained:
1. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and personalities. conflicting (CaratingSiayngco v. Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, Oct, 27.
2004)
2. Mere sexual infidelity or perversion, do not by themselves constitute psychological incapacity, as well as immaturity and
irresponsibility.
Note: It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which would make respondent completely unable
to discharge the essential obligations of a marital state, not merely youth, immaturity or sexual promiscuity. (Dedel vs CA, G.R. no.
151867, Jan.29, 2004)
3. Disagreements regarding money matters. (Tongol v. Tongol, G.R. No. 157610, Oct. 19, 2007)
4. Mere abandonement.
Note: There must be proof of natal or supervening disabling element in the personality factor that effectively incapacitates a person
from accepting and complying with the Essential Marital obligations of Marriage. (Republic v. QuinteroHamano, G.R. No. 149498, May
20, 2004)
5. Sexual infidelity (Republic v. Dagdag, GR No. 109975, February 9, 2001).
In the case of Santos v. CA (240 SCRA 20, 1995), the Supreme Court held that being of unsound mind, drug addiction, habitual
alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality may be indicia of psychological incapacity, depending on the degree of severity of the
disorder. However, the concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality is a ground of annulment of
marriage.