Psychological incapacity:

What is it?
When people hear the term “psychological incapacity,” they often associate it with
mental illness. They have the impression that a psychologically incapacitated person is
deranged, incapable of interacting with people, violent and should be locked up in a
mental institution.

There are those who ask me if a person declared as such can still be allowed to work,
or if it lessens the chances of an applicant to land a job. Others wonder if the person
can still freely travel here and abroad, or if it is like a criminal record, which has to be
declared when applying for visas, government applications and the like.

A person may be psychologically incapacitated vis-a-vis his wife, but he is

just like any regular guy to the rest of the world.
You can see all the different notions and impressions of psychological incapacity; and
how fertile the imagination of people is about it. But what really is psychological
incapacity under the Family Code?

In a nutshell, psychological incapacity is a person’s inability to comply with his (or her)
marital obligations to his (her) spouse. These marital obligations include giving mutual
love and help, respect, fidelity and support to the other. The party’s incapacity stems
from a root cause which is determined by an expert, like a psychiatrist. If the expert
finds him such, then he can recommend that the marriage be declared void ab initio
(from the beginning).

This is Article 36 of the Family Code. Said article mandates: “(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.”

For psychological incapacity to be a ground for declaration of nullity, it must be grave,

incurable and have juridical antecedence. Grave and incurable are self-explanatory.
Juridical antecedence means the incapacity must have been present at or even before
celebration of marriage (even though it manifested only, as the law provides, after
solemnization).

I think at this point, you are still quite drowned by the legal jargon. To help you
understand this better, let me cite an example. X and Y were sweethearts. After they got
married, X started exhibiting signs of incompatibility with Y. Later, he no longer cared for
and disrespected Y. He even refused to be intimate with her. He then stopped giving her
support.

In short, he ceased being what a husband should be to Y. This resulted in irreconcilable

differences where eventually the spouses could no longer tolerate each other. There
was no third party involved. The wife sought professional assistance from a psychiatrist.
The latter determined X as narcissistic (egocentric) which was the root cause of his
psychological incapacity. Because of this, the court, upon petition filed by Y, declared
their marriage void ab initio.

Note though that X is still a normal person towards everyone, save for his wife. He gets
along with their children. He belongs to the top management of a huge commercial
enterprise, where he is well loved and praised for his achievements. He has a good
number of close friends in the society.
So, you see, a person may be psychologically incapacitated vis-a-vis his wife, but he is
just like any regular guy to the rest of the world. To his children, he can still be the father
who cares for them. To his peers, he may be the best buddy and chum. To his
subordinates, he may be the best boss one can ever have. What am I driving at? Even
if a person is judicially declared psychologically incapacitated, he is not the looney
people often picture him. He is far from deranged or incoherent. He can still freely travel
anywhere. He need not tick any box in an application form, that he is psychologically
incapacitated as if it were a crime. He can still perform his obligations which society
expects from him.

Unfaithfulness and sexual infidelity need not be present

for a declaration of nullity.
Psychological incapacity exists towards the other spouse. It has no bearing on a
person’s relationship with others. So, disabuse your minds of the notion that it is a
mental disturbance that renders someone incapable of interacting with others. I guess
you now have a better perspective of what psychological incapacity is. It can be a
stand-alone ground to warrant a declaration of nullity. As you may have noticed in my
example, I mentioned that there was no third party. Unfaithfulness and sexual infidelity
need not be present for a declaration of nullity under Article 36. Sexual infidelity in fact is
a ground for legal separation and not nullity or annulment.

There you have it. Psychological incapacity is not that dreadful as it seems.