Kardo met Glenda as a young lieutenant and after a whirlwind courtship, they were married. In the early part of his military career, Kardo was assigned to different places all over the country but Glenda refused to accompany him as she preferred to live in her hometown. They did not live together until the 12th year of their marriage when Kardo had risen up the ranks and was given his own command. They moved to living quarters in Fort Gregorio. One day, while Kardo was away on official business, one of his military aides caught Glenda having sex with the corporal assigned as Kardo’s driver. The aide immediately reported the matter to Kardo who rushed home to confront his wife. Glenda readily admitted the affair and Kardo sent her away in anger. Kardo would later come to know the true extent of Glenda’s unfaithfulness from his aides, his household staff, and former neighbors who informed him that Glenda has had intimate relations with various men throughout their marriage whenever Kardo was away on assignment.
Kardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36. Based on interviews from Kardo, his aide, and the housekeeper, a psychologist testified that Glenda’s habitual infidelity was due to her affliction with Histrionic Personality Disorder, an illness characterized by excessive emotionalism and uncontrollable attention-seeking behavior rooted in Glenda’s abandonment as a child by her father. Kardo himself, his aide, and his housekeeper also testified in court. The RTC granted the petition, relying on the liberality espoused by Te v. Te and Azcueta v. Republic. However, the OSG filed an appeal, arguing that sexual infidelity was only a ground for legal separation and that the RTC failed to abide by the guidelines laid down in the Molina case. How would you decide the appeal? (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the RTC decision. Under Article 36 of the Family Code and Tan-Andal versus Andal, psychological incapacity is a legal concept involving enduring personality structures that prevent compliance
Unlock the full Civil Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Article 36 of the Family Code as re-examined in Tan-Andal v. Andal, how is psychological incapacity defined?
Psychological incapacity is defined as a legal concept involving enduring personality structures that prevent marital compliance.
When does sexual infidelity constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36 rather than a mere ground for legal separation?
Sexual infidelity constitutes psychological incapacity when rooted in a grave, pre-existing, and incurable personality disorder.
Is a personal psychiatric examination of the respondent spouse mandatory to prove psychological incapacity under current jurisprudence?
Personal examination of the respondent spouse is not required if the totality of evidence sufficiently proves incapacity.
What character of incurability is required to establish psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code?
Choices available with full access.
Why did the RTC correctly grant Kardo's petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Glenda?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Psychological Incapacity Requisites
Under Article 36 of the Family Code, as refined in Tan-Andal v. Andal, psychological incapacity is a legal concept referring to durable personality structures that render a spouse truly incognizant of essential marital obligations. It is no longer required to be a medical illness. The incapacity must be proven by the totality of evidence showing that it was antecedent, grave, and legally incurable. Although sexual infidelity alone is a ground for legal separation, it may manifest psychological incapacity when caused by an underlying personality disorder.
2. Totality of Evidence
In actions for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage under Article 36, personal examination of the respondent spouse by a physician or psychologist is not an indispensable requirement. The testimony of the petitioning spouse, along with corroborating witnesses such as household staff and military aides, combined with expert psychiatric evaluation based on comprehensive third-party interviews, can sufficiently establish the presence of psychological incapacity.
3. Molina Guidelines Modification
The rigid evidentiary guidelines set forth in the Molina case have been modified by subsequent jurisprudence to embrace a more holistic legal approach. Psychological incapacity does not require clinical permanence in the medical sense, but rather legal incurability, meaning the enduring personality structure of the spouse is so deeply rooted that compliance with essential marital duties is legally impossible.