Lack of proof of juridical antecedence is it the only hindrance to the annulment of hopeless marriages?

• Main Authors: Caringal, Carlos M., Carlos, Anna Christine M.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2001
• Subjects: Commercial Law
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/17860
• Institution: De La Salle University

Article 36 of the Family Code gives additional grounds to annul a marriage. This article is all about psychological incapacity. However, the term was not defined in the article for the reason that the Family Code Committee did not want to limit the scope of the law as to its definition. Instead, it wanted the court to interpret it in a case-to-case basis and that they be guided by the opinion of the experts and the interpretation of the church tribunal. As further guide to parties who will use that article, the Supreme Court in, its decision in Santos v. Court of appeals, gave three guidelines to help determine psychological incapacity. After a while, the Supreme Court again issued another set of guidelines in People v. Court of Appeals and Molina to strengthen the first three guidelines. After giving of the additional guidelines, no marriage has been annulled by the Supreme Court on the ground of psychological incapacity. Comparing all the cases after People v. Court of Appeals and Molina, it was noticeable that the marriages were not annulled because the parties were not able to prove that the psychological incapacity was already present at the time of the celebration marriage. The marriages were not annulled for lack of evidence by the party to prove that the incapacity was present at the time of the marriage and that the incapacity is the reason for the non-fulfillment of marriage obligation. The researchers found out that the Supreme Court did not really specify the kinds of evidence that is acceptable by the court. So the guidelines whether to consult a physician or not, seems to be the conflict to the proving of psychological incapacity. More so, it appears that proving that a person is indeed psychologically incapacitated does not necessarily prove juridical antecedence. After seeing several aspects of the subject, the researchers have conclude that the Supreme Court should, once and for all, clear the issue and set additional guidelines to prove the juridical antecedence of psychological incapacity.