In order for sexual infidelity to constitute psychological incapacity, the respondent’s unfaithfulness must be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality which completely prevented the respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the marital state.

There must be proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated him from complying with the obligation to be faithful to his spouse. It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

Accordingly, the allegation of marital infidelity cannot be automatically ruled as an invalid ground to declare a marriage void ab initio. As long as the alleged sexual infidelity stemmed from the psychological incapacity of the unfaithful spouse, it can be a valid ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Indeed, such blatant insensitivity and lack of regard for the sanctity of the marital bond and home cannot be expected of a married person who reasonably understand[s] the principle and responsibilities of marriage.

This is consistent with Dr. Tayag’s findings that respondent’s sexual infidelity is a manifestation of his antisocial personality disorder. Persons with antisocial personality disorder “may repeatedly disregard or violate the rights of others, may lie, deceive or manipulate others, act impulsively, or disregard their or others’ safety.” Hence, respondent’s blatant disregard for the consequences of his affair on the petitioner.

The respondent’s psychological incapacity manifested in other behaviors as well. Examples of the respondent’s disregard for others’ rights and safety were his failure to show any concern for his spouse after childbirth and his inappropriate response of leaving abruptly when his newborn child fell off a sofa. He spent very little time at home and when he did, he was cold and indifferent towards the petitioner. Eventually, the respondent abandoned his family.

Per Dr. Tayag’s findings, the respondent “does not give importance to his marital ties and personal commitments.” He acts irresponsibly, untrustworthily, and unreliably. The meaning of marriage and marital obligations is lost on the respondent. Thus, the respondent never fulfilled any of his obligations to be “present, loving, faithful, respectful and supportive.”

Accordingly, the allegation of marital infidelity cannot be automatically ruled as an invalid ground to declare a marriage void ab initio.

Dr. Tayag opined that the respondent’s lack of remorse for any of these behaviors is also a manifestation of his antisocial personality disorder.

The foregoing constitutes “clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one’s essential marital obligations due to psychic causes.”

The respondent’s psychological incapacity has juridical antecedence. His behavioral patterns, specifically his sexual infidelity, were manifest since before the celebration of the marriage.

Dr. Tayag traced the respondent’s behavioral problems to his childhood as well. The lack of discipline in his upbringing reinforced his impulsiveness and irresponsibility. He became pleasure-oriented and viewed responsibilities as obstacles to immediate gratification. Respondent did not receive proper guidance to correct these behavioral patterns. Worse, he was aware of his own father’s sexual infidelity as well. (To be continued)