In the Philippines, where absolute divorce remains unavailable, the primary legal mechanism to dissolve a marriage is through a declaration of nullity or annulment under the Family Code. Among the grounds, psychological incapacity under Article 36 stands as the most frequently invoked and litigated basis. This provision declares a marriage void from the beginning if one or both parties were psychologically incapacitated at the time of its celebration to comply with essential marital obligations, even if the incapacity manifests later.

Psychological assessment has become a cornerstone of these proceedings. While not expressly mandated by statute, jurisprudence has elevated expert psychological evaluation to a practical requirement for establishing the existence, gravity, antecedence, and enduring nature of the incapacity.

Legal Basis: Article 36 of the Family Code

Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, as amended, provides:

"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 ground renders the marriage void ab initio, distinguishing it from annulment of voidable marriages under Articles 45 and 46 (e.g., lack of parental consent, fraud, impotence, or affliction with sexually transmissible disease). Essential marital obligations derive primarily from Articles 68 to 71: the duty to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. These extend to procreation and the rearing and education of children, as well as the overall maintenance of the family as an institution.

Psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not a clinical diagnosis. It refers to a durable aspect of a person's personality structure—often rooted in early development—that manifests in clear acts of dysfunctionality, preventing genuine assumption and fulfillment of marital roles toward a specific partner. It differs from mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, emotional immaturity, incompatibility, or ordinary marital conflicts.

Requisites of Psychological Incapacity

Courts require proof that the incapacity is:

Grave or serious — It must be so profound that the party cannot carry out ordinary marital duties, not merely a difficulty or unwillingness.
Juridically antecedent — It must have existed at the time of the marriage celebration, though overt manifestations may appear afterward. The root cause typically traces to childhood, adolescence, or pre-marital personality formation.
Enduring or incurable — In earlier interpretations, this meant clinically permanent; later rulings emphasize a durable personality trait that persists despite reasonable efforts, without requiring absolute incurability or proof that no cure exists.

The condition must demonstrably impair the person's ability to understand and comply with marital obligations due to psychic causes.

Evolution of Jurisprudence

Early interpretations were strict. In Santos v. Court of Appeals (1995), the Supreme Court clarified that psychological incapacity denotes a mental (not physical) incapacity that is grave and deeply rooted.

Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina (1997) established rigorous guidelines that dominated for decades:

The burden of proof rests on the petitioner.
The root cause must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the petition, proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision.
The incapacity must have existed at the time of marriage.
It must be shown as clinically or medically permanent or incurable.
It must be grave enough to prevent assumption of essential obligations.
The obligations refer to those in Articles 68–71 and related provisions.
Expert evidence from qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists is required.
The totality of evidence must convince the court of a psychic illness preventing valid assumption of marital obligations.

These guidelines aimed to prevent Article 36 from becoming a "liberal divorce" mechanism and to protect the sanctity of marriage.

The landmark Tan-Andal v. Andal (2021) significantly liberalized the approach. The Supreme Court declared psychological incapacity a legal, not strictly medical, concept. It need not be a recognized mental disorder, nor must it be proven absolutely permanent or incurable. The focus shifted to whether a durable personality structure causes clear dysfunction in complying with marital obligations to the specific partner. Expert testimony remains highly persuasive but is no longer mandatory in every case; the totality of evidence—including lay testimonies—can suffice if clear and convincing.

Subsequent rulings have reinforced this. Testimonies from family members, friends, and other collaterals can establish psychological incapacity, particularly when the allegedly incapacitated spouse does not participate, as these sources reduce petitioner bias. Courts have recognized conditions such as controlling or domineering behavior, chronic irresponsibility, inability to emotionally connect or provide support, and certain personality disorders as potentially constitutive when rooted in antecedent psychic causes.

The Psychological Assessment: Process and Requirement

Although Article 36 does not explicitly require a psychological evaluation, courts routinely demand it as the primary expert evidence in psychological incapacity cases. The assessment serves to:

Diagnose any underlying personality disorder or psychic condition.
Establish the root cause and its juridical antecedence.
Demonstrate gravity and enduring impact on marital capacity.
Link the condition directly to the inability to fulfill specific obligations.

Who conducts the assessment? A licensed clinical psychologist or psychiatrist with expertise in forensic or marital psychology. The expert must qualify as an authority capable of testifying in court.

What the process entails:

Clinical Interview — In-depth sessions with the petitioner, and ideally the respondent (though often impossible due to non-participation). Collateral interviews with family, friends, or acquaintances provide objective history.
Psychological Testing — Standardized instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire, projective tests (Rorschach Inkblot, Thematic Apperception Test), intelligence tests, and others tailored to personality structure.
History Review — Family background (genogram), childhood experiences, courtship, marital dynamics, employment, and behavioral patterns.
Report Preparation — A comprehensive written evaluation detailing findings, diagnosis (e.g., narcissistic, antisocial, borderline, dependent, or paranoid personality disorder; substance abuse; sexual paraphilias), and explicit conclusions on the three requisites (gravity, antecedence, incurability/enduring nature). The report must explain how the condition prevents compliance with marital obligations.

The expert typically testifies in court, subject to cross-examination by the public prosecutor or opposing counsel. When the respondent refuses involvement, the evaluation relies on collateral sources and the petitioner's narrative, provided these are corroborated.

Costs vary widely (often PHP 20,000 to over PHP 100,000) and form a significant barrier, alongside legal fees and protracted litigation.

Common Psychological Conditions Invoked

Courts have accepted various conditions when properly linked to marital incapacity, including:

Narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders (chronic lack of empathy, entitlement, irresponsibility).
Borderline, dependent, or avoidant personality disorders.
Paranoid personality traits.
Substance abuse disorders with psychotic features.
Sexual perversions or deviations impairing procreation and fidelity.
Deep-seated immaturity or emotional detachment when rooted in personality structure.

Mere infidelity, abandonment, habitual alcoholism, physical abuse, or "irreconcilable differences" do not suffice without proof of an underlying grave psychic cause existing at the time of marriage.

Judicial Procedure and Evidentiary Role

A petition for declaration of nullity is filed with the Regional Trial Court (Family Court) having jurisdiction over the residence of the petitioner or respondent. The public prosecutor or Office of the Solicitor General represents the State to prevent collusion and ensure evidence sufficiency.

The psychological report and expert testimony form the core of the petitioner's evidence. Supporting witnesses (family, friends) corroborate behavioral manifestations. The court evaluates the totality of evidence under the "clear and convincing" standard.

If granted, the marriage is declared void from the beginning. Children remain legitimate. Property is liquidated according to the regime (usually absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains). The decision becomes final after appeal periods, with registration in the civil registry.

Challenges and Practical Considerations

Proving psychological incapacity remains demanding despite liberalization. Petitioners must overcome the presumption of marriage validity. Cases often span years due to crowded dockets, mandatory investigations, and possible appeals. Non-participation by the respondent complicates evidence gathering. Cultural stigma, family pressures, and high costs deter many.

Courts caution that Article 36 is not a substitute for divorce; unsatisfactory or failed marriages alone do not qualify. Each case turns on its facts, with emphasis on case-to-case determination.

Recent Trends and Developments

Post-Tan-Andal, the Supreme Court has continued a more humane, flexible application while preserving safeguards. Rulings in 2025 have affirmed the use of family and friend testimonies, recognized controlling or emotionally detached behaviors as potential indicators when tied to personality disorders, and clarified that children's legitimacy persists regardless of nullity on psychological incapacity grounds.

The emphasis remains on the totality of evidence showing a grave, antecedent psychic dysfunction that fundamentally undermines the marital union, rather than rigid clinical labels. Psychological assessments continue as the evidentiary bedrock in most cases, providing the scientific and explanatory bridge between behavior and legal incapacity.

This framework balances the constitutional protection of marriage as an inviolable social institution with the reality that some unions are psychologically doomed from inception, allowing parties to seek legal release and the possibility of future valid marriages.