No psycho incapax even if wife refuses to fvck

A and B are married. The man contended that the wife refused to consummate their marriage by refusing to have sexual intercourse with him during the marriage. He alleged that their last intercourse was prior to their marriage. He contended that the wife was suffering from psychological incapacity. Is the contention correct?

The contention is not correct.

The husband’s evidence merely established that the wife refused to have sexual intercourse with him after their marriage, and that she left him after their quarrel when he confronted her about her alleged miscarriage.  He failed to prove the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity and establish the requirements of gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.  There must be proof that the psychological disorder renders her “truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.”Psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” a “refusal,” or a “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations.  An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.  In Marcos v. Marcos, it was ruled that Article 36 of the Family Code, we stress, is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor 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. (Baccay v. Baccay. G.R. No. 173138. December 1, 2010)

Mere difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations, or ill will on the part of the spouse, is different from incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological condition or illness. Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity, as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. It is essential that the spouse must be shown to be incapable of performing marital obligations, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. If the condition or personality disorder has not been shown to be a malady rooted on some incapacitating psychological condition, the petition to declare the marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines must fail. (G.R. No. 173138)

In Toring v. Toring, the Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability, to be sufficient basis to annul a marriage. The psychological incapacity should refer to 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. (G.R. No. 209031)

In other words, Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. (G.R. No. 209031)