Memorandum on Psychological Incapacity

By: Sheryll Ann Y.Rin

Submitted to: Atty. Ramon Leano

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Public Prosecutor unto the Honorable Court most

respectfully avers:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On September 16,2005, petitioner Michelle Tan-Rosario

(Michelle) and respondent Simon John Rosario (Simon) contracted marriage at Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. The marital union did not

produce any child. On December 15, 2006, a year after their marriage,John left for Canada went back home. Michelle now comes to court to pray for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Simon John on the ground of to work. Since then, he never

psychological incapacity.

ISSUE
Whether constitutes or not abandonment incapacity to by be and a of itself for

psychological

ground

declaration of nullity of a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

THE LAW
ARTICLE 36 Psychological incapacity, to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 361 of the Family Code, refers to a

serious psychological illness affecting a party even before the celebration of marriage.
JURISPRUDENCE

In Santos vs. Court of Appeals2, the Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)

gravity, (b)juridical antecedence and (c) incurability.

Article 36. 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 celebration. 2 310.Phil.21(1995)

In Republic vs. Molina3, the Supreme Court further set forth guidelines in the interpretation and application of

Article 36 of the Family Code, thus:

1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.xxxx 2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically and clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (e)clearly explained in the decision 3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. 4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. 5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage 6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Article 68 to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. 7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling, should be given great respect by our courts. 8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

ARGUMENTS
THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DOES NOT WARRANT DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE OF MICHELLE AND SIMON JOHN THE

ABANDONMENT BY AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY TO BE A GROUND FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE

DISCUSSION
ON THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED

The Supreme Court clarified in Antonio vs. Reyes4 that the Molina Guidelines is not set in stone and that Article 36 is to be applied in a case to case basis. Furthermore in Ngo Te vs. Yu-Te5, expert testimony is not always required but certainly helps prove allegations since Psychological Incapacity is a mental process. Nevertheless, there is still a need to prove the psychological incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person alleging said disorder6. In this case, the psychological incapacity report is insufficient to establish Simons psychological incapacity. In this case, Michele sought to establish that Simon was not able to fulfill the marital obligations of marriage on the ground
3 4 5 6

of

his

abandonment

of

the

conjugal

home,

ceasing

to

335 Phil.664 (1997) G.R.No. 155800, 10 March, 2000. G.R.No. 161793, February 2009. Bier vs Bier, G.R.No. 173294, February 27, 2008.

provide

spousal

support

and

failing

to

communicate

with

his

wife. (TSN, December 15, 2010). No other witness who had seen and observed his demeanor before their marriage and during their year together were presented. Michelle relied heavily on the findings of the psychologist who made up the following

evaluation regarding Simons make-up:

1. When Michelle and Simon were married, they

developed Partner Relational Problem. 2. During their marriage, Simon demonstrated in his

attitude and behavior his psychological incapacity to fulfill essential marital obligations 2.1 He was self-centered, selfish, insensitive, when he

left Michelle alone in the conjugal home.

The report

Psychologist was based

was on

not

able

to

interview she

Simon.

The on her

only the

the

interview not

conducted weight to

Michelle.

Hence,

Court

should

give

assessment regarding the behavior of Simon. The report failed to show the root cause of Simonss

psychological incapacity as it failed to demonstrate that there was a natal or supervening disabling factor or an adverse integral element in Simons character, that effectively

incapacitated her from accepting, and thereby complying with, the essential marital obligations7,and that his psychological

incapacity was already existing before their marriage. ON ABANDONMENT The intendment of of the 36 law to has the been most to confine cases the the of

application personality

Article

serious of

disorders

clearly

demonstrative

utter

insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.8 The petition must fail. Mere difficulty or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will on the part of the spouse which is the abandonment of the husband of his wife
7 8

Ferraris vs Ferraris,G.R.No.162368, July 17, 2006. Ting vs Velez-Ting, G.R.No.166562, March 31, 2009.

in

this

case

is

different

from

incapacity

rooted

in

some

debilitating psychological illness. An unsatisfactory marriage,is not a null and void marriage.9 At best, the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner grounds for legal of separation of and not under a ground 36 for of are the the

declaration

nullity

marriage

Article

Family Code. Under Article 55 of the Family Code, Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year is a ground for legal separation.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE,considering does not constitute that abandonment by and of the itself Public

psychological

incapacity,

Prosecutor prays that the petition be ordered DENIED and the marriage of Michelle Tan-Rosario and Simon John Rosario be

declared valid and existing.

Carating-Siayngco vs Siayngco, G.R.No. 158896, October 27, 2004.