InSantos v. Court of Appeals, the Court declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The Court emphasized that it should refer "no less than a mental, not physical, incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage."The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.

In the case of Azcueta v. Republic of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals,[footnoteRef:1] the Court ruled that one who cannot contribute to the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations within the meaning of Article 36. In Azcueta, Respondent suffered from dependent personality disorder, rendering him incapable of making his own opinions and carrying on his responsibilities as a husband. Similarly, Saldy Muncada based on Dr. Garcias psychiatric evaluation suffers from the same disorder.[footnoteRef:2] Salvador lacked motivation and needed a lot of push and support from the people around him. He stayed jobless for a time and was only able to get work through the help of his brother, Pedro Muncada, Jr. Likewise, Saldy even after being employed, refused to provide for his wife, Jenny. Instead, he used his salary to support his drinking vice. He continually refused to perform his obligations as a husband. [1: G.R. No. 180668 (2009).] [2: The Psychiatric Evaluation of the Spouses, Salavador Saldy Tan Muncada and Jenny Lynn Ang-Muncada attached as Annex L of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity, p. 20. ]

In Te v. Te,[footnoteRef:3] the Court expounded on the nature of a dependent personality disorder and how one afflicted with such a disorder would be incapacitated from complying with marital obligations, to wit: [3: G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009.]

Indeed, petitioner, who is afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others, allows others to make most of his important decisions (such as where to live), tends to agree with people even when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing things on his own, volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.As clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around him.He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in life.In the case of Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes,[footnoteRef:4] the Court in ruling the case, affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court that antisocial personality disorder with narcissistic and dependent features renders the respondent too immature and irresponsible to assume the normal obligations of a marriage. Quoting the finding of the Dr. Garcia, Saldy Muncada is: xxx paranoid. Even as an adolescent, it was apparent that he had poor relationships and was envious and hypersensitive. Toward his spouse, he was absurdly jealous. He is antisocial. He is irresponsible, irritable and remorseless. He is dependent. He needs to be constantly reassured and supported. He has difficulties in making decisions or doing things on his own. [4: G.R. No. 185286 (2010).]

On the matter of Saldys infidelity, with him contracting marriage in Canada even during the existence of his marriage with Jenny, the Court has ruled that sexual infidelity and abandonment of conjugal dwelling per se are not grounds for psychological incapacity. The Court ruled that in in order for sexual infidelity and abandonment be considered as grounds for psychological incapacity it must be shown that they are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations.[footnoteRef:5] Looking into the fact of this instant case, after Saldys employment contract in Canada expired, he still refused to go back to the Philippines to his wife Jenny, citing baseless reasons. The communication between one another lessened as timed passed until Jenny lost contact with him altogether. The only time Jenny had any news of Saldy was when she received a copy of the Divorce filed by Saldy in Canada. These are clear manifestations that Saldy is incapable of discharging his marital obligation of mutual love, respect and fidelity and rendering of mutual help and support as required by the family code. [5: Villalon v. Villalon, 475 SCRA 572, Toring v. Toring, 626 SCRA 389, 406, Republic of the Philippines v. Encelan, G.R. No. 170022 (2013).]

Further, when Respondent Muncada left his wife for Canada with a promise to provide support his wife and with plans that Petitioner Muncada would follow him abroad is comparable to the case of Republic v. Quintero-Hamano.[footnoteRef:6] In Quintero-Hamano, after celebration of marriage and begetting a child, Respondent Hamano left for Japan with a promise to his wife that he would be returning. However, Respondent failed to return and even stopped sending financial support to his wife. The Supreme Court in ruling over the petition, upheld the RTCs finding that: [6: G.R. No. 149498 (2004).]

It is clear from the records of the case that respondent spouses [sic] failed to fulfill his obligations as husband of the petitioner and father to his daughter. Respondent remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs and welfare of his family. Such indifference, to the mind of the Court, is a clear manifestation of insensitivity and lack of respect for his wife and child which characterizes a very immature person. Certainly, such behavior could be traced to respondents mental incapacity and disability of entering into marital life.

In sum, jurisprudence provides that infidelity, abandonment and failure to provide support by themselves are not sufficient grounds to establish psychological incapacity. There is an additional requirement that must be clearly shown. These behaviors must be indicative of the disordered personality of a spouse which renders that individual incapable in the discharge of his marital obligations.