Final Paperedited
INTRODUCTION
The promulgation of the Family Code of the Philippines1 heralded the grounds for marriages void ab initio, the most controversial of which is psychological incapacity. This ground is embodied in article 36 of the Family Code, which history may be traced to the Catholic Church, specifically Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law.
There are various interpretations and definitions assigned to psychological incapacity. In fact, currently, there is yet no exact definition to the term.2 Nonetheless, the Supreme Court elucidated that the term contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic parental obligations and not mere refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. Moreover, irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, do not automatically warrant a finding of psychological incapacity.3
Uncovering the differences and similarities of the perspectives of both the Court and the Church would clarify what psychological incapacity truly is.
Objectives of the Study
This study aims to compare and contrast the perspective of the Family Code and the Canon Law with regards to Psychological Incapacity. Specifically, it aims:
1. To determine the grounds under which psychological incapacity may exist for both the Church and the Court;
2. To determine the criteria utilized by the Church and the Court in granting the nullity of the marriage on the ground of Psychological Incapacity; and,
3. To determine the quantum (the nature) of evidence (is meant to be understood in its ordinary acceptation and not that kind of genre that we often speak of in legal parlance which refers to substantial evidence, evidence beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence. Here (in other words the bulk of evidence and what is that bulk
The promulgation of the Family Code of the Philippines1 heralded the grounds for marriages void ab initio, the most controversial of which is psychological incapacity. This ground is embodied in article 36 of the Family Code, which history may be traced to the Catholic Church, specifically Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law.
There are various interpretations and definitions assigned to psychological incapacity. In fact, currently, there is yet no exact definition to the term.2 Nonetheless, the Supreme Court elucidated that the term contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic parental obligations and not mere refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. Moreover, irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, do not automatically warrant a finding of psychological incapacity.3
Uncovering the differences and similarities of the perspectives of both the Court and the Church would clarify what psychological incapacity truly is.
Objectives of the Study
This study aims to compare and contrast the perspective of the Family Code and the Canon Law with regards to Psychological Incapacity. Specifically, it aims:
1. To determine the grounds under which psychological incapacity may exist for both the Church and the Court;
2. To determine the criteria utilized by the Church and the Court in granting the nullity of the marriage on the ground of Psychological Incapacity; and,
3. To determine the quantum (the nature) of evidence (is meant to be understood in its ordinary acceptation and not that kind of genre that we often speak of in legal parlance which refers to substantial evidence, evidence beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence. Here (in other words the bulk of evidence and what is that bulk