Loveless Marriages:
A growing interpretation of Psychological Incapacity as a ground for Nullity of Marriage


By: Atty. Gabrielle B. Allabo, Atty. Ariadne Kirsten E. Hornilla, and Atty. Rhenelle Mae O. Operario



In an interview with Al Jazeera1discussing the current disposition of Filipinos on marriage and divorce, Cindy Diaz recounted her time with her former husband, who would at times unjustifiably disappear for days following arguments, and, at his worst, sexually assaulted her. In another interview with Rappler2, Vanessa Santos shared how she only lived with her former husband for two months after allegedly witnessing him sexually harassing her younger sister and posting an erotic image of a woman in their bathroom. In another case3, Michelle Bulang related that during their marriage, she had suffered frequent beatings from her husband and his constant rage created an environment where she and their children felt that the need to walk on eggshells.

In a nutshell, the experiences of Cindy Diaz, Vanessa Santos, and Michelle Bulang represent the realities faced by spouses trapped in a loveless or even abusive marriage. In each of these cases, it is clear that the absence of companionship, respect, safety, and love has effectively dissolved and eventually led to the breakdown of their respective marriages. Yet, despite not having lived with their spouses for years, these marriages continue to bind these women as all of them felt that their respective cases would not pass the stringent grounds on legally dissolving their marriages with their former partners.

Under the Family Code of the Philippines (“Family Code”), one of the ways to legally dissolve a marriage is by filing a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. A common ground cited in all of these cases involves Psychological Incapacity, which is defined under the Family Code as follows:


“Art. 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 solemnization.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

For the longest time, Psychological Incapacity has been understood as a medical or clinical concept, particularly as a psychological disorder. As such, courts require proof that: (a) either or both parties to the marriage are mentally or psychologically ill; (b) that such condition is incurable by nature; and as a consequence thereto, (c) the person is incapable of complying with the essential marital obligations as enumerated under the Family Code.4

This all changed after the Supreme Court decided in the case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal 5 that Psychological Incapacity must be understood as a legal rather than a medical concept:


“xxx To summarize, psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one’s essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is not required.

As an explicit requirement of the law, the psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and is caused by durable aspect of one’s personality structure, one that was formed before the parties married. Furthermore, it must be shown to be caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. To prove psychological incapacity, a party must present clear and convincing evidence of its existence.”


The re-framing of Psychological Incapacity under this landmark ruling reflected an evolving interpretation of acts constituting psychological incapacity. The guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Tan-Andal vs. Andal has thus become a staple in subsequent cases.

For instance, the Supreme Court established in one case that an unjustified absence from the marital home for decades may be considered as part of the totality of evidence showing a person to be psychologically incapacitated:


We find that the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner sufficiently establish the psychological incapacity of respondent.

Based on the facts, respondent left his family in 1994 and appears to have contracted marriage several times, with different women. He never gave financial support to his children and only visited them once, for less than an hour. These indicate that respondent did not understand his obligations as a husband and father.” 6


Much like that of Cindy Diaz, Vanessa Santos, and Michelle Bulang, the above-mentioned case decided by the Supreme Court reflects stories of marriages absent any form of mutual love and respect from the spouses. While the Decisions of the Supreme Court after Tan-Andal vs. Andal may seem to have opened a less stringent ground in nullifying marriage, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court in all of these cases still placed the burden on the petitioner spouse to prove a consistent and undeniable pattern of failure to meet marital obligations under the Family Code:


“The ruling in Tan-Andal is clear that there must be proof of the consistent behavior of the psychologically incapacitated spouse. This shall consist of an undeniable pattern of failing to be present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive. xxx” (Emphasis and underscoring `upplied). 7


However, this long line of decisions on psychological incapacity may change.

In an unprecedented turn, the Supreme Court on 4 November 2024 issued a Decision in the case of Ronald Boado versus Florence Galvez-Boado and the Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 236627) wherein the Court declared the marriage of Ronald Boado with Florence C. Galvez-Boado null and void due to Ronald’s psychological incapacity. In sum, the Supreme Court ruled Ronald’s assertion that he no longer loved his wife, coupled with his proving that this was rooted in a durable part of his personality caused by an immature parent, effectively resulted in his failure to comply with his essential marital obligation - to love his spouse. This was manifested by the fact that Ronald failed to provide the emotional needs of Florence, the most basic of which is physical presence and companionship. As such, the Court deemed it proper not to force Petitioner to stay in a loveless marriage and thereby declare his marriage with Private Respondent as void.

Observing mutual love as a marital obligation is established under Article 68 of the Family Code, which states:


“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support” (Emphasis supplied)


In relation thereto, the Supreme Court in several cases has long affirmed the observation of mutual love as a core marital obligation. However, in the case of Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals8, the Supreme Court emphasized that such marital obligation is not subject to compulsion by law or court order:


“While the law provides that the husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually the ‘spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order’ (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, 120 Phil 1298) xxx” (Emphasis supplied)


Loveless marriage or any series of acts amounting to the same, as amounting to psychological incapacity, is not a new concept cited by the Supreme Court in its decisions.

In one case9, the Supreme Court declared the subject marriage null and void after determining that the Petitioner and her witnesses had sufficiently demonstrated Repsondent’s undeniable pattern of psychological incapacity: first, Respondent physically and verbally abused Petitioner on multiple occasions; second, Respondent neglected and eventually abandoned his wife and children; and finally, Respondent repeatedly committed acts of infidelity, violating his marital vows.

It is worth emphasizing that, in this case, the recognition of a loveless marriage as a ground to nullify their union due to psychological incapacity was a result of the Supreme Court considering the totality of facts proven by Petitioner and her witnesses:


“True, physical and verbal abuse, neglect, and abandonment of spouse and children, or acts of infidelity including adultery or concubinage, each constitutes a ground for legal separation. But where each one of these grounds or a combination thereof, at the same time, manifest psychological incapacity that had been existing even prior to marriage, the court may void the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.” (Emphasis supplied)


In another case,10 the Supreme Court declared the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent as null and void after the Supreme Court found that Respondent exhibited clear signs of psychological incapacity as shown by his abandonment only after a year into marriage and eight months after Petitioner gave birth, financial irresponsibility, and a lack of love and support. The Supreme Court determined these as clear acts of a serious failure to comply with his marital obligations and thus stated:


“Verily, the foregoing circumstances demonstrate an undeniable pattern of persisting failure on the part of respondent to fulfill his duty as a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse to petitioner, which renders his psychological incapacity incurable. As may be gleaned from the records, respondent’s acts of abandonment, financial irresponsibility, and falling out of love with petitioner have consistently endured and persisted
throughout their marriage.

xxx


Further, respondent’s non-compliance with his essential marital obligations cannot be considered as a mere product of some difficulty, neglect, refusal, or ill-will to escape the marital bond. Rather, his acts show a serious failure to love and support petitioner as her husband. xxx” (Emphasis supplied)


An examination of these cases reveals that the Court does not reject the idea of loveless marriage as a form of psychological incapacity. In fact, the Court has long acknowledged the marital obligation to observe mutual love between spouses as provided under the Family Code. However, common in all of these cases citing loveless marriage is the fact that the Court never strayed away from the requisites necessary in establishing psychological incapacity: gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence.

Notwithstanding the Court’s reframing on the interpretation of psychological incapacity, decisions of the Court after Tan-Andal vs. Andal remain steadfast in ensuring that psychological incapacity as a ground for nullifying marriages is rooted in a genuine psychic cause and not on mere refusal or ill will on the part of the supposed incapacitated spouse.

This is the view of Justice Jhosep Lopez takes in his Dissenting Opinion to the aforementioned case of Boado vs. Galvez-Boado, which emphasized the ruling’s stark contrast against other cases discussing psychological incapacity post Tan-Andal vs. Andal. According to Justice Lopez, Roland in this case failed to show through clear and convincing evidence that his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder rendered him unable to fulfill his marital obligations to Florence, to wit:


“Thus, in Clavecilla v. Clavecilla, this Court affirmed that “there must be proof of the consistent behavior of the psychologically incapacitated spouse” and that this should show “an undeniable pattern of failing to be present, loving faithful, respectful, and supportive.

In this case, Ronald was previously able to fulfill all his essential marital oblgiations to his wife, except that of living together, which was mostly due to economic reasons.


xxx


In fine, there is no evidence that Ronald’s personality structure or the fact that he has Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder renders him unable to filfill his essential marital oblgiations to Florence. By his own account, he is more than capable of fulfilling such obligations but merely refuses to do so now tha the has had a change of heart regarding how he feels for his wife.” (Emphasis supplied).


Still, despite differing opinions, the fact remains that the Supreme Court recognized a loveless marriage as amounting to psychological incapacity - making it a valid reason to declare a marriage null and void. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Boado vs. Galvez-Boado, even with said dissenting opinion, brought attention to the real-life struggles of marriages faced by many in the country, as exemplified by the stories of Cindy Diaz, Vanessa Santos, and Michelle Bulang.

Taking all of these into consideration, it goes without saying that the ruling in Boado vs. Galvez-Boado would likely influence how psychological incapacity is now understood as a ground in legally dissolving unions in the country, especially in the context of loveless marriages. At a time when societal views on marital roles and responsibilities continue to evolve, it falls upon the wisdom of the Supreme Court to balance the long-standing principles meant to uphold the sanctity of marriage with the current realities experienced by many Filipinos - individuals who remain bound to marriages that no longer embody the ideals precisely envisioned in the Family Code: unions where mutual love, respect, and fidelity are not merely obligations, but inherent norms.

1     Al Jazeera. 2025. “The fight for divorce rights in the Philippines.” Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm_WAHKY-uA&ab_channel=AlJazeeraEnglish

2     Sitchon, H. 2024. “Cebu pro-divorce groups urge people in toxic relations to ‘let go.’” Retrieved from http://rappler.com/philippines/visayas/cebu-divorce-advocates-urge-people-toxic-relationships-let-go/

3     Aspinwall, N. 2024. “We are not criminals: Philippines considers making divorce legal.” Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/5/we-are-not-criminals-philippines-considers-making-divorce-legal?utm_source=chatgpt.com

4      Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997

5      Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. 196359, 11 May 2021

6      Dela Cruz - Lanuza vs. Lanuza, G.R. No. 242362, 17 April 2024

7      Clavecilla vs. Clavecilla, G.R. No. 228127, 6 March 2023

8      Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119190, 16 January 1997

9      Ma. Virginia D.R. Halog vs Wilbur Halog and Republic, G.R. No. 231695, 6 October 2021

10      Lovelle Shelly Cayabyab-Navarrosa vs. Mark Anthony Navarrosa, G.R. No. 216655, 20 April 2022


*The views and opinions expressed are based on applicable laws, constitutional provisions, and/or jurisprudence in force at the time of writing, and do not constitute legal advice or an official stance on any political matter. Subsequent legal or factual developments may affect the relevance or applicability of the views and opinions herein expressed.

Back to the Top

OUR MAIN OFFICE

Contact Us

(02) 869-66692
inquiry@uclaw.ph

Address

16 Bayanihan St., West Triangle Homes, Brgy. West Triangle, Quezon City

Opening Hours

Monday to Friday:
8:00AM - 6:00 PM

Quick links