Short answer. Psychological incapacity is a genuine inability to carry out the essential obligations of marriage, and it must already have existed when the marriage was celebrated. It is treated as a legal concept rather than a medical diagnosis, so expert psychiatric testimony is not what the law strictly requires.
What the law says
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.
Family Code, Article 36 — Psychological Incapacity. Read the full provision →
It is an incapacity, not a difficulty or a refusal
The provision reaches a party who was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. The word doing the work is incapacitated. A spouse who is capable of fulfilling the obligations of marriage but chooses not to is not covered; neither is a marriage that simply became unhappy, nor one where the parties merely grew incompatible.
This is why irreconcilable differences, falling out of love, and even repeated infidelity do not, on their own, establish psychological incapacity. They may be evidence of an underlying incapacity, but they are not the incapacity itself.
The incapacity must exist at the time of the celebration
The statute fixes the moment: the incapacity must have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage. A condition that develops years later, however serious, is not within the article.
The law does, however, expressly allow for the incapacity to have been hidden at the outset. The marriage is void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. So the question is when the incapacity existed, not when it became visible.
It is a legal concept, not a diagnosis
For many years the ground was described in clinical terms, and in practice a petition unsupported by expert psychiatric testimony was difficult to sustain. That framing has since been set aside. The incapacity is understood as a legal concept, which means the question is not whether a spouse carries a diagnosable disorder that a clinician would recognise.
What has to be shown instead are the durable aspects of a spouse's personality, already present before the marriage, that made complying with its essential obligations impossible. Proof may come from people who knew that spouse before the wedding and can describe how they actually were. Expert testimony can still help, but it is no longer indispensable.
The marriage is void, but a court still has to say so
A marriage falling under this article is void from the beginning rather than merely voidable. That distinction matters for property relations and for the status of children.
It does not, however, mean the parties can simply treat themselves as unmarried. A separate provision of the Family Code requires a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void before either party may remarry. Until that judgment exists, remarriage carries real criminal exposure.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021 (Leonen, J.) — psychological incapacity is a legal, not medical, concept; expert opinion not required; incurability in the legal sense. Read our commentary →
- Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997 — the Molina guidelines; partly amended by Tan-Andal.
- Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995 — gravity, juridical antecedence, incurability.
Related provisions
- Family Code, Article 35 — Void Marriages
- Family Code, Article 45 — Grounds for Annulment
- Family Code, Article 40 — Judicial Declaration Before Remarriage