As we all know, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage can be filed on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. In filing one, there are certain requisites that need to be proven — incurability, gravity, and juridical antecedence. You wonder how these three play a vital role in determining psychological incapacity, and how they do, in view of the latest jurisprudence.

Quoted from Lovelle Shelly S. Cayabyab v. Mark Anthony E. Navarrosa (G.R. 216655, promulgated 20 April 2022), the Supreme Court said: "In the light of the Court's fundamental paradigm shift in viewing psychological incapacity as a purely legal, rather than a medical concept, the understanding of the requisites in determining psychological incapacity… must be refined accordingly. With regard to the requisite of incurability, it must now be recognized that psychological incapacity is incurable only in the legal (not medical) sense in that the incapacity is 'so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.' In order for said requisite to obtain, there must be 'an undeniable pattern of a persisting failure to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse that must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other. Meanwhile, the requisite of gravity in psychological incapacity must be such that it is caused by a genuinely psychic cause and not just 'mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes or occasional emotional outbursts' nor mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, much less ill will. As such, 'a deeper and fuller assessment of the alleged incapacity must be done such that is clearly and convincingly shown that the fulfillment of the essential marital obligation is not merely feigned or cumbersome but rather, practically impossible, because of the distinct psychological makeup of the person relative to his or her spouse.'"

"Lastly, the requisite of juridical antecedence (which — to note — is explicitly necessitated by the phrase 'at the time of the celebration of the marriage' in Article 36) means that the incapacity is determined to exist during the time of celebration. While it may indeed be difficult — if not scientifically impossible — to determine the existence of psychological incapacity at the exact point in time that the couple exchanged their 'I dos,' it is sufficient, however, that the petitioner demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the incapacity, in all reasonable likelihood, already exists at the time of the marriage's celebration. To determine the reasonable likelihood of its existence at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the Court, in Tan-Andal, held that 'proof of juridically antecedent psychological incapacity may consist of testimonies describing the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to a particular behavior. Moreover, the concept of juridical antecedence must be understood to include the ordinary experiences of the spouses not only prior to the marriage itself but more importantly, during their 'lived conjugal life' together since, as the law itself states, a marriage can be declared null and void under Article 36 'even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.'"

In declaring marriages void ab initio, courts are not demolishing the foundation of families, but are actually preserving their true purpose and meaning.

"Therefore, in order to determine juridical antecedence, 'judges must reconstruct the marital decision-making process of an individual, just like inquisitive investigators. The judge must trace back and examine all the manifestations before and during marriage to find out if such non-fulfillment relates to the intrinsic psychological makeup of the person relative to his or her specific partner, and not just some mere difficulty that ordinary spouses, at some point in time, are bound to go through."

"A final word. With the promulgation of Tan-Andal, the doctrines relative to the concept of psychological incapacity, as well as its three requisites… have now been refined by the Court to reflect its genuine sense as originally intended by the Family Code Revision Committee. While the Court has adopted a more liberalized approach to psychological incapacity cases through the Tan-Andal ruling, it should be borne in mind that in declaring marriages void ab initio…, courts are not demolishing the foundation of families, but are actually preserving their true purpose and meaning. While the Constitution depicts marriage as an inviolable social institution, its inviolability should not mean an absolutist resistance to sever marital bonds. Both prudence and fairness dictate that the inviolability envisioned by the Constitution should pertain to marriages that are valid and not those which are null and void. Hence, while the Constitution renders inviolable marriages that are valid, it also frees the chains of those trapped in one which is a nullity."

Beautifully said. Crystal clear. I have nothing further to add.