Short answer. It must have existed at the time of the marriage. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity be present at the celebration — not that it be obvious then. The law is clear that it can become apparent only after the wedding without invalidating the ground.
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 →
What the text of Article 36 actually requires
Article 36 of the Family Code draws a precise line: the psychological incapacity must have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage. A condition that genuinely developed after the wedding — that had no roots in the person's psychological constitution at the time of the vows — does not satisfy Article 36. The ground targets incapacity that was already present when the marriage was contracted, even if nobody could see it yet.
Why late manifestation does not disqualify the ground
Article 36 contains a second important clause: the marriage is void "even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." This addresses a practical reality. Psychological incapacity — the inability to comply with essential marital obligations — often does not reveal itself in the early period of a relationship. It may take years of cohabitation before the incapacity becomes visible in behavior. The law accepts that the manifestation may be delayed without requiring that the incapacity itself be delayed. Existence at the time of marriage is required; visibility at that time is not.
The distinction between pre-existing and post-marriage conditions
The practical difficulty is that this distinction — incapacity existing at marriage but showing up later — must be established in a petition to the court. The person filing the petition must demonstrate that what they observed during the marriage is the expression of a deep-rooted condition that was already present, not something that arose from the stresses of married life. This is why the facts of how the person behaved before and at the time of the marriage are relevant to the proceeding, even when the petition is filed years after the wedding.
What this means if you are considering filing
If your spouse's behavior during marriage revealed a profound inability to fulfill marital obligations, the timing question — whether that incapacity was rooted in their condition before or at the time of the marriage — will be central to any petition you file. Evidence of how the incapacity manifested, how long it has persisted, whether it is tied to the person's character and not just circumstances, and whether it is connected to a condition that predated the wedding are all relevant. Every case depends on its own facts, and the strength of a petition rests on how clearly those facts are established.
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.