In Marcos v. Marcos, it was held that the foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated and that what is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. In the case at bar, the evidence presented were the testimonies of Jose, his military aides and the psychiatrist. But this is inadequate in proving that her “defects” were already present at the inception of, or prior to, the marriage. Only the uncorroborated testimony of Jose supported the allegation that Bona’s sexual promiscuity already existed prior to the marriage. The psychiatrist’s testimony on Bona’s histrionic personality disorder did not meet the standard of evidence required in determining psychological incapacity as her findings did not emanate from a personal interview with Bona herself and merely relied on her interview with Jose and his other witnesses.
This factual circumstance evokes the possibility that the information fed to the psychiatrist is tainted with bias for Jose’s cause, in the absence of sufficient corroboration. In view of the foregoing, the badges of Bona’s alleged psychological incapacity, i.e., her sexual infidelity and abandonment, can only be convincingly traced to the period of time after her marriage to Jose and not to the inception of the said marriage.
Article 36 is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
