According to jurisprudence, one of the key elements that should be mandatorily proven in nullity cases based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is juridical antecedence. This has long been a requirement dating back to the Republic v. Molina decision.
In essence, juridical antecedence is where the psychological condition of the person rendering him incapacitated was already existent at the time of the marriage. In fact, this condition was present even prior to the celebration of marriage.
Note that the Family Code qualifies that while the psychological condition should have been existent at the time of marriage, the symptoms may manifest after the celebration of marriage.
So picture this. A person gets married. He is able to properly discharge his spousal duties during marriage. But after a certain point, he no longer can do so. He may be declared psychologically incapacitated. But what if it surfaces only many years after?
This is what the Supreme Court resolved in the following case.
Here petitioner-husband instituted a petition for the nullity of his marriage. His medical expert testified that petitioner was psychologically incapacitated. He presented evidence that for years after he and his wife got married, he was the one who kept the marriage going. Both he and his wife worked in different countries abroad at different points in time. He proved that his wife later no longer provided support for the family. He would plead to his wife to bond with their son and to bring pasalubong (gifts) on her return.
But after many years his outlook changed. He was no longer interested in their marriage and told his wife he no longer loved her. The couple lived separately. Later, he filed for annulment.
After a trial on the merits, the court initially declared the marriage null and void. The Office of the Solicitor General moved to reconsider on a technical ground and the fact that petitioner was not able to prove psychological incapacity. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, he was not incapacitated.
The trial court reconsidered its decision and denied the petition for nullity. Petitioner-husband appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court however sustained the findings of the trial court based on the totality of evidence. With no other recourse, petitioner-husband pleaded his case before the Supreme Court.
The Highest Court ruled that: “Psychological incapacity may manifest long after the solemnization of a marriage. A spouse who previously seemed capable of performing his marital obligations may prove to be incapable of doing so, and the marriage may be voided so long as the incapacity is shown to be due to a genuine psychic issue. xxx
“Based on the evidence presented by petitioner, he clearly and convincingly proved his psychological incapacity, specifically its juridical antecedence. It remains undisputed that petitioner grew up with a strict mother who ‘offered him too much demand and too little warmth.’ As a result, he maintained an emotional distance in relationships, learning how to bottle up his true emotions and feelings just to keep the peace. This is why petitioner can perform essential marital obligations tied to providing the family’s material needs, such as financial support, but lacked in providing emotional needs, the most basic of which is physical presence and companionship.
“Indeed, there is evidence of the emotional distance between the spouses, which was exacerbated by the frequent physical distance between them due to their jobs. A review of the facts shows that from 1999 to 2002, when the parties were still dating, they were only physically together for about a year, i.e., in the years 1999-2000.
“From 2000 to 2002, they were apart. While they communicated over the phone, they often did so just to fight. From the time they were married in 2002 until they separated in 2016, petitioner and private respondent were only physically together for about five years. These show that petitioner can maintain a relationship only from a distance, frequently keeping his spouse at arm’s length. Besides, just because a spouse was once able to perform some marital obligations does not mean they cannot be subsequently incapable of fulfilling some of the other obligations.
“This is why Article 36 of the Family Code states that psychological incapacity can manifest after the marriage’s solemnization. In the case of petitioner, his psychological incapacity fully manifested later in the marriage, specifically in 2016, 14 years into the marriage.”
The facts and redacted portion of the decision are from Ronald B. Boado v. Florence C. Galvez-Boado and the Republic of the Philippines et al. (G.R. 263627, 4 November 2024).