Family Law: Avoiding

Fallacious Arguments in
Establishing Psychological
Incapacity
Juan Knows / August 8, 2013
 I.
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
Psychological incapacity is a ground to declare the absolute nullity of void marriages there
being, in the eyes of the law, no consent in contracting the marriage. The inclusion of said
ground under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines is to liberalize the application of
our civil law on personal and family rights (Republic vs. CA and Molina [1997]). It is
intended to allow couples who has clearly and convincingly shown the court that either or
both parties to the contract of marriage has demonstrated or continue to demonstrate an
“utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage” (supra) to
end their vows and start anew.
II.
PROVING PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
Following the guidelines set forth in Republic vs. CA and Molina [1997], to prove
psychological incapacity, it is necessary to determine:
1. Whether or not either or both parties are incapable of complying with the
essential obligations of marriage as set forth in Articles 68 to 71 as well
as in Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the Family Code of the Philippines?

2. Whether or not such incapacity is rooted on some form of psychological

infirmity which may be mental but not necessarily physical in character?

3. Whether or not such psychological incapacity is existing at the time the

couples said their, “I do’s”, although the same may manifest only after the
celebration of the marriage?

4. Whether or not such psychological incapacity is grave?

5. Whether or not such psychological incapacity is incurable?

Ordinarily, the rules on evidence allow expert testimony to prove forms of psychological
infirmity. However, under Section 2(d) of AM No 02-11-10-SC, to prove psychological
incapacity, expert opinion need not even be alleged. Under the law, it is sufficient to allege
only the complete facts showing the physical manifestations that are indicative of
psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage. The said rule is fraught
with dangers as couples may easily collude to make it appear that such facts exist when they
do not. Hence, the rule requires a public prosecutor to appear for the State and take steps to
prevent collusion between the parties at any stage of the proceedings and fabrications or
suppression of evidence during the trial on the merits. It is also worth noting that since the
provisions on psychological incapacity has been taken from Canon Law of the Catholic
Church, decisions of church tribunals, although not binding on our civil courts, may be given
persuasive effect.
III.
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AND THE RULES OF LOGIC
The term “psychological incapacity” has been the subject of varied interpretations since the
law has failed to provide a clear, coherent, and unambiguous definition of the same. What is
clear, however, is that the invocation of said ground to annul a marriage depends to a large
extend on the attending facts and circumstances of each case. Hence, psychological incapacity
may not be invoke simply because there exists between the couples “irreconcilable
differences” or “conflicting personalities”. Again, noteworthy is the fact that expert testimony
to prove psychological incapacity may be dispensed with. As cited in Barcelona vs. CA
[2003], since AM No 02-11-10-SC do not require the petition to allege expert opinion on
the psychological incapacity, it follows that there is also no need to allege in the petition the
root cause of the psychological incapacity. Had the rule been the other way around, experts in
the fields of neurological and behavioural sciences would have been competent to determine
psychological incapacity and the root cause thereof.

In consequence of the liberality of the rules on invoking psychological incapacity to annul a

marriage, proving the same thus become an easy prey for fallacious arguments if rules of logic
would be applied in reference. Fallacious arguments in logic are erroneous reasoning. In the
interpretation of the provision on psychological incapacity, lawyers and judges in the past
have often resorted to this type of reasoning knowingly or unknowingly. To elucidate on the
matter, here are some fallacious arguments raised by parties in establishing psychological
incapacity in two cases decided by the Supreme Court:

1. Ambiguity
2. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
3. Disconnected Premises
4. Complex Question

Note the distinctions in the averment of facts in the two cases below.
IV.
CASES IN POINT
 A.
Republic vs. CA & Molina [1997]

The Supreme Court did not grant the petition to annul the marriage between Husband
Reynaldo Molina and Wife Roridel Olaviano in this case. The essential facts herein as alleged
by Wife Roridel are as follows:

1. That Husband Reynaldo showed signs of “immaturity and

irresponsibility” as a husband and a father;

2. That the above is shown by his preference to spend more time with his
peers and friends on whom he squandered his money;

3. That he depended on his parents for aid and assistance;

4. That he was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances,
resulting in frequent quarrels between them;

5. That he left his Wife Roridel, and their child, and had since then
abandoned them after he was relieved of his job some few weeks before
and after an intense quarrel between the two spouses;

6. That it is the stand of Dr. Sison, a psychiatrist, that the spouses above are
psychologically unfit for each other but they are psychologically fit with
other partners;

7. That it is also the stand of Dr. Sison that there is no hope for the marriage
because the man is also living with another woman; hence, the marriage
must be annulled.
All of the above facts, argued by Wife Roridel, lead to the conclusion that Husband Reynaldo
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage as set
forth in Articles 68 to 71, supra.
B.
Antonio vs. Reyes [2006]
Unlike in the former case, the Supreme Court granted the petition to annul the marriage
between Husband Leonilo Antonio and Wife Marie Ivonne Reyes in this case. The essential
facts herein as alleged by Husband Antonio are as follows:

1. That Wife Reyes persistently lied about herself, the people around her,
her occupation, income, educational attainment, and other events or
things;

2. That she concealed the fact that she previously gave birth to an
illegitimate son and instead introduced the boy to Husband Antonio as
the adopted child of her family. That she only confessed the truth when he
learned about it from other sources after their marriage;

3. That she misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician, Dr.

Consuelo Gardiner, and told some of her friends that she graduated with a
degree in psychology, when she was neither;

4. That she claimed to be a singer or a freelance voice talent affiliated with

Blackgold Recording Company; yet, not a single member of her family
ever witnessed her alleged singing activities with the group;

5. That she invented friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez, and
under those names, sent lengthy letters to Husband Antonio claiming to
be from Blackgold and touting her as the “number one moneymaker” in
the commercial industry worth P2 million;

6. That she represented herself as a person of greater means, thus, she

altered her payslip to make it appear that she earned a higher income;

7. That she exhibited insecurities and jealousies over Husband Antonio to

the extent of calling up his officemates to monitor his whereabouts;
 8. That when Husband Antonio could no longer take her unusual behavior,
he separated from her in August 1991. He tried to attempt a reconciliation
but since her behavior did not change, he finally left her for good in
November 1991.

The above facts were proven by evidence presented by Husband Antonio showing Wife Reyes’
propensity for telling lies and her fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and
personalities. According to the Court, she practically lived in a world of make believe making
her, therefore, not in a position to give meaning and significance to her marriage to Husband
Antonio. As concluded by the psychiatrist presented by Husband Antonio, such repeated lying
is abnormal and pathological and amounts to psychological incapacity.
C.
Distinctions between Republic vs. CA & Molina and Antonio vs. Reyes
Applying the Rules of Logic on Fallacious Arguments

(1) Ambiguity

There is ambiguity when we use a key word or phrase to have two or more different meanings
in the same argument.

For lack of clear, coherent, and unambiguous definition, the term “psychological incapacity”
has been equated to “mild characteriological peculiarities”, “mood changes”, “occasional
emotional outburst”, “irreconcilable difference”, and “conflicting personalities” to name a few.
In the case of Republic vs. CA & Molina, psychological incapacity has likewise been
misconstrued to mean “immaturity and irresponsibility”.

(2) Appeal to Inappropriate Authority

This fallacy may arise when we cite the opinion of an expert in a matter outside his or her
expertise.

In the case of Republic vs. CA & Molina, psychiatrist Dr. Sison therein was asked whether or
not it is his recommendation based on his findings that it is better for the Court to annul the
subject marriage to which the former answered, “Yes”. Clearly, it is beyond the competence of
a psychiatrist to recommend annulment of marriage based solely on his findings. At best, his
expert testimony is admissible to prove psychological incapacity of one of the parties to the
case.
In Antonio vs. Reyes, on the other hand, the expert testimony of the psychiatrist presented by
Husband Antonio showed that the repeated lying of his wife is abnormal and pathological and
amounts to psychological incapacity. It was the court, acting well within its authority, which
determined that such psychological incapacity exhibited by Wife Reyes was sufficient ground
to annul the marriage.

(3) Disconnected Premises

Premises are disconnected when the middle premise that holds an argument together is either
absent or not applied in the right place; hence, insufficient to support a conclusion.

In Republic vs. CA & Molina, Wife Roridel attempted to prove “immaturity and
irresponsibility” as tantamount to psychological incapacity. She alleged facts which she avers
are constitutive thereof. However, she failed to prove their gravity and incurability. At best,
the Court concludes that the alleged acts does not amount to incurable psychiatric disorder
but the same were merely showing of incompatibility.

In Antonio vs. Reyes, on the other hand, Husband Antonio showed by convincing evidence
that his wife’s actuations were abnormal amounting to a disorder which was present even
before they said their, “I do’s”. Even if we are to remove him and their marriage from the
equation, still such propensity for lying would still subsist. Hence, Wife Reyes is
psychologically incapacitated under the law.

(4) Complex Question

Complex question may be likened to a misleading question under the rules on evidence. A
misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness or
contrary to that which he has previously stated (Sec. 10, Rule 132, Rules of Court). In Complex
Question, on the other hand, the question is phrased in such a way as to presuppose the truth
of a conclusion buried in that question. In Republic vs. CA and Molina, Dr. Sison, the
psychiatrist, testified:
COURT
Q It is therefore the recommendation of the psychiatrist based on your findings
that it is better for the Court to annul (sic) the marriage?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q There is no hope for the marriage?
A There is no hope, the man is also living with another woman.
Q Is it also the stand of the psychiatrist that the parties are psychologically unfit
for each other but they are psychologically fit with other parties?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Neither are they psychologically unfit for their professions?
A Yes, Your Honor.
The Court has no more questions.
V.
Conclusion

Article 36 of the Family Code on psychological incapacity as a ground to annul a marriage has
been the subject of much difficulty for judges and lawyers alike in applying the same to
specific cases. It has become an easy prey for fallacious arguments especially to the most
unwary and untrained eye. More often than not, facts and circumstances attending a decided
case by the Supreme Court will not warrant the same conclusions to a seemingly similar case.
As envisioned by the Revision Committee which drafted the Family Code, judges are to
interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts
and researchers in psychological disciplines and by decision of church tribunals. If one is to
file a petition to declare the nullity of one’s void marriage, note the distinctions on the
arguments raised by the parties in the above-cited cases. Before equating facts and
circumstances to psychological incapacity of either or both spouses, remember, as Immanuel
Kant once said, that fallacious arguments and misleading arguments may be easily detected
and avoided if we learn to set them out in correct syllogistic form.