This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The term "psychological incapacity" to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage.[11] These are the disorders that result in the utter insensitivity or inability of the afflicted party to give meaning and significance to the marriage he or she has contracted.[12] Psychological incapacity must refer to 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.[13] | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. CA and Molina,[7] we ruled that the psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," a "refusal" or a "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not equate to psychological incapacity.[8] Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor, an adverse integral element in petitioner's personality structure that effectively incapacitated him from complying with his essential marital obligations,[9] had to be shown. In this, petitioner failed. | |||||
|
2008-02-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The trial court apparently overlooked the fact that this Court has been consistent in holding that if a petition for nullity based on psychological incapacity is to be given due course, its gravity, root cause, incurability and the fact that it existed prior to or at the time of celebration of the marriage must always be proved.[8] As early as Santos v. CA, et al.,[9] we already held that:[P]sychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. 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. | |||||