Lim Go vs. Go

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion; it consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one's essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. The incapacity must be shown to have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage, caused by a durable aspect of one's personality structure formed before the parties married, and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence of mutual incompatibility and antagonism between the spouses that undermines the family.

Leilani Lim Go and Hendrick N. Go were married on August 7, 1999, in church rites at St. Augustine Church in Intramuros, Manila, and had two children, Lance Harvey and Heiley Louise. The marriage was governed by the Family Code of the Philippines, particularly Article 36, which provides that 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 be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. The case involved the application of the Supreme Court's re-conceptualized understanding of psychological incapacity, which shifted from the requirement of clinically identified personality disorders to a focus on mutual incompatibility and antagonism between spouses arising from their respective personality structures.

Leilani Lim Go and Hendrick N. Go first met in December 1996 in Hong Kong and again in March 1997 at De La Salle-College of St. Benilde, where Hendrick asked for her phone number. They became sweethearts in 1998 and engaged in pre-marital sex. A year later, Leilani got pregnant and was advised by her parents to marry Hendrick. He initially said he was not prepared to get married and suggested abortion, even asking if he was indeed the father of the child. Leilani became enraged and would have cancelled the wedding plans were it not in consideration of her parents. They married on August 7, 1999, and lived in the house of Hendrick's parents, where Leilani found it difficult living with her parents-in-law, as Hendrick's mother would often comment that Leilani was not the type of woman her son wanted to marry.

In 2000, Leilani caught Hendrick having a phone conversation with his former girlfriend Kristine. She discovered from his mobile phone that he had been seeing and constantly communicating with Kristine, including a text message that read: "Love, we may not be together now, but love I know we will be together in the end." When confronted, Hendrick asked for forgiveness and promised to stop communicating with Kristine, but he never did. His infidelity took a toll on their marriage as they grew cold toward each other. Leilani also complained about his failure to work hard and earn enough money, as he was content with his small business and made basketball his priority. She focused on her work, helped in her father's business, and provided for the needs of their children, while Hendrick was always missing and barely spoke to her.

In 2007, Leilani got pregnant with their third child but lost the baby on her tenth week of pregnancy. She got depressed and resented her husband's nonchalance. He refused to have another child, saying "gastos lang 'yan." In 2009, they had sexual intercourse only six times. In his Facebook account, Hendrick identified himself as a single person and kept a secret chat box with Kristine. On their tenth wedding anniversary, Leilani only got a casual dinner, which made her feel unloved. In 2013, she began to sleep in her parents' house during weekends and brought their children with her, marking the start of their separation. She sought psychiatric help and was prescribed antidepressants. When she suggested marriage counselling, Hendrick retorted "mas magaling pa ako sa counsellor." In 2014, they completely separated, and Leilani filed the petition for nullity of marriage.

Clinical Psychologist Nedy L. Tayag conducted a psychological evaluation of the couple, basing her findings on interviews with Leilani and Jennel See, the spouses' close friend, and the results of Leilani's psychological tests. Hendrick ignored the invitation for psychological testing. The Clinical Psychologist diagnosed Leilani with Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder with features of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Hendrick with Avoidant Personality Disorder with features of Antisocial Personality Disorder. She opined that their conditions were permanent and grave, and that no amount of intervention and psychotherapy would suffice to cure their flawed and defective nature. Hendrick testified that he is still deeply in love with his wife, albeit he admitted he did not give her the attention, love, and financial support she deserves. His father, Go Pen Siong, testified that his son had been given proper parental guidance and that the couple were deeply in love and not forced to get married.

• Disregard of Expert Findings: Leilani faulted the Court of Appeals for disregarding the expert findings of the Clinical Psychologist just because no prior personal examination and interview of Hendrick were done, arguing that the re-conceptualized framework in Tan-Andal no longer requires expert opinion to prove psychological incapacity.
• Totality of Evidence: Leilani argued that the totality of evidence, including her testimony, the corroborating testimony of Jennel See, and the Clinical Psychologist's report, clearly and convincingly established the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between her and Hendrick arising from their clashing personality structures.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the totality of evidence presented by Leilani was insufficient to prove that she and Hendrick are psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of marriage, and that Leilani allegedly failed to show that her husband's imputed disorders are grave and incurable.
• One-Sided Diagnosis: The Office of the Solicitor General contended that the Clinical Psychologist's findings were one-sided and self-serving since Hendrick had not been personally examined, and that the Clinical Psychologist relied solely on information gathered from Leilani and Jennel.

• Psychological Incapacity: Whether the marriage between Leilani and Hendrick should be set aside for being a nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.

• Psychological Incapacity: Yes. The marriage was declared void ab initio. Applying the re-conceptualized framework in Tan-Andal vs. Andal and the guidelines in Laroco vs. Laroco, the Court found clear and convincing evidence of mutual incompatibility and antagonism between the spouses arising from their clashing personality structures, which undermined the unity and harmony within the family.

• Psychological Incapacity: The Court applied the re-conceptualized concept of psychological incapacity established in Tan-Andal vs. Andal, which set aside the focus on personality disorders and re-tooled psychological incapacity as the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between the spouses arising from their respective personality structures. Under this framework, psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion; rather, there must be proof of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermine the family. The Court also applied the new guidelines in Laroco vs. Laroco, which require clear and convincing evidence of acts, behavior, conduct, events, reputation, character, or circumstances of dysfunctionalities in the lives of the spouses that are indicative of incompatibility and antagonism between them and the resulting impairment of family harmony and unity.

The Court found that the existence and gravity of the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between Leilani and Hendrick were established by their separation since 2014 and the initiation of the present case. The acts, behavior, conduct, events, reputation, character, or circumstances of dysfunctionalities revolved around conflicting personality structures between the spouses, including general differences of interests and antagonistic feelings, loss of love, hostility and resentment, distrust, the inability to live harmoniously together, lack of concern or indifference, lack of common interests and goals, and zero probability of reconciliation between the spouses. The Court noted that the evidence did not prove that Hendrick by any wayward acts had grievously offended Leilani, but the fact remained that they remained separated, were better off as parents when apart, and Hendrick did not seek to reconcile and live together again with Leilani.

The Court held that the mutual incompatibility and antagonism were grave, as they had already brought about the marital breakdown and separation of the spouses. They were incurable, as the spouses tried to reconcile within their means and time but failed miserably, and the Clinical Psychologist's opinion gave substantial probability to this conclusion. The mutual incompatibility and antagonism were pre-marital, as they were symptomatic of the spouses' clashing personality structures, which must have been present though latent before they were married, and blew openly and out of proportion when they began to live together. The Court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of juridical antecedence, and that both Leilani and Hendrick were psychologically incapacitated, in the legal sense, from complying with their marital obligations.

• Re-conceptualized Psychological Incapacity under Article 36, Family Code — Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. It consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one's essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is not required. The psychological incapacity must be shown to have been in existence at the time of the celebration of the marriage, caused by a durable aspect of one's personality structure formed before the parties married, and must be shown to be caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. To prove psychological incapacity, a party must present clear and convincing evidence of its existence.

• Elements of Psychological Incapacity — For mutual incompatibility and antagonism to constitute psychological incapacity, the same must be characterized by the elements of: (a) gravity, i.e., it must be serious such that the spouses would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted and shown in the history of the spouses antedating their marriage though the overt manifestations may emerge substantially and significantly only after the marriage; and (c) incurability, i.e., it must not be susceptible to any cure, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means and inclination of the spouses. Each of these elements must be proven clearly and convincingly.

• Guidelines in Determining Incompatible Personality Structures (Laroco Guidelines) — In proving psychological incapacity, counsel must present clear and convincing evidence of acts, behavior, conduct, events, reputation, character, or circumstances of dysfunctionalities in the lives of the spouses which are clearly and convincingly indicative or illustrative of the incompatibility and antagonism between them and the resulting impairment of family harmony and unity. These dysfunctionalities would often revolve around or be classified as: general differences of interests and antagonistic feelings; loss of love; hostility and resentment; distrust; the inability to live harmoniously together; lack of concern or indifference; lack of common interests and goals; instances of violence against women and their children as defined in Republic Act No. 9262 and other laws; zero probability of reconciliation between the spouses; and failure of the spouse or the spouses to perform his, her, or their marital duties and obligations that is clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This list is not exclusive but only illustrative.

• Res Ipsa Loquitur in Psychological Incapacity Cases — The Court applied the evidentiary principle of res ipsa loquitur, "the thing speaks for itself," to draw the inference that there being no other reason for the spouses' separation, their efficacy as parents when apart from each other, but for the evidence of their respective personality traits or disorders, it must be and have been these clashing personality structures that animate the animosity between them.

• "Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called 'personality structure,' which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family." — This passage from Tan-Andal vs. Andal, quoted in the decision, articulates the re-conceptualized definition of psychological incapacity and eliminates the requirement of expert opinion, which is the controlling doctrine in this case.

• "To summarize, psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one's essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is not required." — This passage summarizes the re-tooled concept of psychological incapacity and is the canonical formulation applied by the Court in granting the petition.

• "In any case, inasmuch as the Constitution regards marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family, courts must not hesitate to void marriages that are patently ill-equipped due to psychic causes inherent in the person of the spouses." — This passage from Tan-Andal, quoted in the decision, underscores the Court's rationale for voiding marriages that are ill-equipped due to psychic causes, and was relied upon in granting the petition.

• Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 12, 2021 — Controlling precedent that re-conceptualized psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, setting aside the focus on personality disorders and expert opinions, and re-tooling psychological incapacity as mutual incompatibility and antagonism between spouses arising from their respective personality structures.

• Laroco vs. Laroco, G.R. No. 253342, June 22, 2022 — Followed; introduced a new set of guidelines on how to establish psychological incapacity on the basis of the spouses' personality structures, enumerating the acts, behavior, conduct, events, reputation, character, or circumstances of dysfunctionalities that may be presented as evidence.

• Castro vs. Castro, G.R. No. 210548, March 2, 2020 — Cited for the principle that when a person who entered into the special contract of marital union is psychologically impaired to perform marital obligations, the law perceives the impossibility of achieving the purpose of marriage.

• Santos-Gantan vs. Gantan, G.R. No. 225193, October 14, 2020 — Cited for the principle that in dissolving marital bonds on the ground of psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families but actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, since there is no marriage to speak of as it is void from the very beginning.

• Calma vs. Santos-Calma, G.R. No. 242070, August 24, 2020 — Cited for the previous doctrine that psychological incapacity had been consistently confined to the "most serious cases of personality disorders," clinically or medically identified, which was later re-conceptualized in Tan-Andal.

• Article 36, Family Code — Provides that 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. This is the statutory basis for the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in this case.

• Republic Act No. 9262 — Referenced in the Laroco guidelines as one of the classifications of acts, behavior, conduct, events, reputation, character, or circumstances of dysfunctionalities, specifically instances of violence against women and their children as defined in this law and other laws.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), M. Lopez, J., Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.