Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, marriage is regarded as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman, entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is governed primarily by the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended), which emphasizes the inviolability of marriage as a social institution. Unlike many jurisdictions that allow no-fault divorce based on irreconcilable differences or emotional estrangement, the Philippines does not recognize divorce for Filipino citizens (except in cases involving foreign spouses under certain conditions). Instead, couples seeking to dissolve their marriage must pursue annulment, declaration of nullity, or legal separation.

Annulment declares a marriage void from the beginning due to defects existing at the time of celebration, while a declaration of nullity treats the marriage as never having existed. The concept of "lack of marital affection"—often manifesting as emotional detachment, indifference, or absence of love and intimacy—does not stand as an independent ground for annulment under Philippine law. However, it may be invoked as evidence or a symptom within broader grounds, particularly psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. This article explores the legal framework, jurisprudential interpretations, procedural aspects, and practical implications of pursuing annulment on bases related to lack of marital affection, drawing from statutory provisions and Supreme Court rulings.

Legal Framework: Grounds for Annulment and Nullity

The Family Code delineates specific, exhaustive grounds for annulment in Article 45:

One of the parties was between 18 and 21 years old and married without parental or guardian consent.
Either party was of unsound mind at the time of marriage.
Consent was obtained through fraud (e.g., concealment of pregnancy by another person, prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality, or lesbianism).
Consent was vitiated by force, intimidation, or undue influence.
One party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage (impotence), and such incapacity continues and appears incurable.
One party had a serious and incurable sexually transmissible disease.

For declaration of nullity (void ab initio marriages), Article 35-37 and 53 cover scenarios such as underage marriage without proper authorization, bigamous or polygamous unions, mistake in identity, incestuous marriages, and those contrary to public policy.

Notably absent from these lists is any direct reference to emotional or affectionate deficiencies. Article 36, however, provides a catch-all provision for nullity: "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." This is where lack of marital affection most frequently intersects with annulment proceedings, as it can indicate an underlying incapacity to fulfill obligations like mutual love, respect, fidelity, support, and cohabitation.

Essential marital obligations, as outlined in Articles 68-71, include living together, observing mutual love and respect, rendering mutual help and support, and jointly managing the family. Lack of affection may evidence a spouse's inability to engage in these, but it must be linked to a psychological condition, not mere incompatibility or post-marital discord.

Jurisprudential Interpretation: Psychological Incapacity and Lack of Affection

Philippine courts have interpreted Article 36 through landmark cases, establishing that psychological incapacity must be:

Grave: Severe enough to prevent fulfillment of marital duties.
Juridical Antecedence: Existing at the time of marriage, even if manifesting later.
Incurable: Permanent or enduring, not amenable to treatment.

In Santos v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995), the Supreme Court defined psychological incapacity as a mental (not physical) incapacity causing non-compliance with marital obligations, rooted in a personality structure that renders the party incapable of understanding or assuming these duties. The case involved a wife who exhibited immaturity and irresponsibility, including emotional detachment, which was deemed insufficient alone but illustrative of broader incapacity.

The guidelines were refined in Republic v. Molina (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997), requiring:

Proof of a true psychological disorder or personality defect.
The incapacity's gravity, antecedence, and incurability.
Expert testimony from psychologists or psychiatrists.
The root cause must be clinically identified and proven.

Mere "lack of love" or "falling out of affection" does not suffice. In Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997), the Court annulled a marriage due to the husband's impotence leading to no sexual relations, which was linked to psychological issues manifesting as lack of affection and intimacy. However, in Republic v. Dagdag (G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001), the Court cautioned that not every instance of emotional coldness qualifies; it must stem from a disorder like narcissism, antisocial personality, or schizoid traits.

Subsequent rulings have addressed affection directly:

In Antonio v. Reyes (G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006), pathological lying led to emotional estrangement, qualifying as incapacity.
In Azcueta v. Republic (G.R. No. 180668, May 26, 2009), chronic irresponsibility and indifference were tied to dependent personality disorder.
More recently, in Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021), the Court liberalized the standard, treating psychological incapacity as a legal (not strictly medical) concept, allowing annulment for narcissistic personality disorder causing abusive behavior and lack of empathy/affection.

Lack of affection alone—without psychological roots—is often rejected. In Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio (G.R. No. 171842, June 30, 2008), the Court denied annulment where the wife's alleged coldness was attributed to post-marital conflicts, not pre-existing incapacity. Similarly, in Kalaw v. Fernandez (G.R. No. 166357, September 19, 2011, on reconsideration January 14, 2015), initial denial was reversed upon showing the husband's gambling and infidelity stemmed from psychological issues leading to affectionate neglect.

Courts require corroborative evidence: witness testimonies, medical records, and psychiatric evaluations. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner, with the State (via the Office of the Solicitor General) as a mandatory respondent to protect marriage's sanctity.

Procedural Aspects

To file for annulment based on psychological incapacity involving lack of affection:

Petition Filing: Submit to the Regional Trial Court (Family Court) where either spouse resides. Include a certification of non-forum shopping and pre-trial brief.
Psychiatric Evaluation: Mandatory under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages). Both parties undergo assessment; the petitioner's expert must testify.
Collusion Investigation: The prosecutor investigates for possible collusion; if found, the petition is dismissed.
Trial and Decision: Evidence presentation, including on lack of affection as symptom. Appealable to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
Effects: If granted, marriage is nullified; children remain legitimate, property is divided per regime (absolute community or conjugal partnership), and support obligations may persist.

Costs include filing fees (around PHP 10,000-20,000), lawyer fees (PHP 100,000+), and expert fees (PHP 50,000+). Process takes 1-3 years, longer with appeals.

Related Remedies: Legal Separation and Recognition of Foreign Divorce

If lack of affection does not meet annulment thresholds, alternatives include:

Legal Separation (Article 55): Grounds like repeated physical violence, moral corruption, abandonment without cause, or attempts on life. Emotional abuse or gross neglect might qualify if severe, but mere lack of affection rarely does. It allows separation of bed and board but not remarriage.
Foreign Divorce Recognition (Article 26): If one spouse is foreign, a divorce obtained abroad may be recognized, potentially addressing affectionate issues indirectly.
Support and Custody Actions: Separate suits for support or child custody if affection deficits harm family welfare.

Practical Implications and Societal Context

Annulment petitions citing psychological incapacity have surged, with lack of affection commonly alleged. However, success rates hover around 50-60%, as courts guard against using Article 36 as de facto divorce. Critics argue this provision is overused for emotional mismatches, straining judicial resources. Proposals for divorce legalization (e.g., House Bill 9349) aim to address such gaps, but as of 2025, annulment remains the primary recourse.

Spouses experiencing lack of affection should seek counseling first (e.g., via DSWD or private therapists) before litigation. Prevention through pre-marital seminars (required under Article 16) emphasizes emotional compatibility.

Conclusion

While lack of marital affection is not an explicit ground for annulment in the Philippines, it serves as pivotal evidence in psychological incapacity cases under Article 36. Success hinges on proving a pre-existing, grave, and incurable psychological condition manifesting as inability to afford love and intimacy. Jurisprudence underscores a balanced approach: protecting marriage while allowing relief for truly dysfunctional unions. Couples navigating this must consult legal experts, as missteps can lead to denial and prolonged distress. Ultimately, the law reflects the cultural value placed on enduring family bonds, tempered by recognition of human frailties.