Psychological Incapacity Under Article 36: When Falling Out of Love Is Not Enough

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Soto v. Reyes-Soto (G.R. No. 249759, April 22, 2026) offers a clear lesson for anyone considering a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code: the evidence must show a psychological condition that is grave, rooted in the person's history, and incurable — not merely a marriage that turned unhappy.

The case also settles an important procedural point: when a petitioner asks the Court to reweigh the credibility of expert witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence, that is a question of fact, which the Supreme Court will not review in a Rule 45 petition.

The Facts of the Case

The spouses met in college, worked together, and married in 1983 after the wife became pregnant. From the start, the wife felt the husband was emotionally distant. He showed little concern during her pregnancy, rarely engaged with their daughter, and remained unusually dependent on his mother. The couple's life together became monotonous, and they stopped having intimate relations in 1986.

The husband eventually moved to the United States for work. The wife and daughter visited, but the relationship never improved. The husband filed for divorce in the United States in 1994. He returned to the Philippines in 2007 hoping to reconcile, but the wife refused, saying there was no marriage left to revive.

In 2013, the wife filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The Evidence Presented

The wife presented the testimony of a psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia Villegas, who personally interviewed both spouses and reviewed psychological tests administered by a clinical psychologist. Dr. Villegas diagnosed the wife with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder and the husband with Inadequate Personality Disorder with an oedipal complex.

The psychiatrist explained that both disorders were rooted in the spouses' formative years, were deeply ingrained in their personalities, and were permanent and incurable. The wife's sister also testified, corroborating the couple's cold and distant relationship.

The Regional Trial Court granted the petition, declaring the marriage void. The Court of Appeals initially reversed, but on reconsideration reinstated the RTC's decision.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The husband appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the psychiatrist's findings were unreliable because they were partly based on tests conducted by another person.

The Supreme Court, however, refused to review the case. The Court explained that the husband's arguments — questioning the credibility of the psychiatrist and the sufficiency of the evidence — raised questions of fact, not questions of law.

Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari may only raise questions of law. A question of law exists when the controversy concerns the correct application of law to a set of admitted facts. A question of fact, on the other hand, arises when the issue calls for an examination of the probative value of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, or the truth or falsity of factual assertions.

Because the husband was essentially asking the Court to reweigh the evidence and reassess the psychiatrist's credibility, his petition raised questions of fact. The Court noted that the factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court.

What This Means for Article 36 Cases

The decision reinforces the established doctrine on psychological incapacity. To declare a marriage void under Article 36, the psychological incapacity must be characterized by:

• Juridical antecedence — the incapacity existed before or at the time of the marriage, even if it only manifested later;
• Gravity — the incapacity is serious, not merely a difficulty, refusal, or neglect in performing marital obligations; and
• Incurability — the condition is permanent and cannot be cured by treatment or professional assistance.

Falling out of love, growing apart, or becoming dissatisfied with marriage does not amount to psychological incapacity. The evidence must show a genuine personality disorder that prevents a spouse from complying with the essential obligations of marriage.

Practical Takeaways

• Evidence matters. A successful Article 36 petition requires clear, credible, and comprehensive expert testimony that traces the psychological incapacity to its roots and explains why it is grave and incurable.
• Questions of fact stay in the trial court. The Supreme Court will not reweigh evidence on a Rule 45 petition. The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive.
• Not every unhappy marriage is void. A marriage cannot be annulled simply because the spouses fell out of love or found it difficult to live together. The psychological incapacity must be a disorder, not a choice.
• Expert testimony must be thorough. The psychiatrist in this case personally interviewed both parties and corroborated her findings with psychological tests. This level of rigor strengthens the petition.
• Procedural rules are strict. Filing the wrong type of petition, or raising the wrong issues, can end a case before the merits are even reached.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.