Digested by: ESBER, KATE ELOISE P.

Case ROSANNA L. TAN-ANDAL, petitioner, vs. MARIO VICTOR M. ANDAL, respondent.

DOCTRINE: 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.

As an explicit requirement of the law, the psychological incapacity must be shown to have been
existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and is caused by a durable aspect of one's
personality structure, one that was formed before the parties married. Furthermore, it must be
shown caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. To prove psychological incapacity, a party must
present clear and convincing evidence of its existence.

FACTS:

Mario and Rosanna married on December 16, 1995 in Poblacion, Makati City. Rosanna gave
birth to Ma. Samantha, their only child. After four years of marriage, Mario and Rosanna separated
in 2000. Rosanna has since kept the sole custody of Ma. Samantha. In 2001, Mario filed a petition for
custody before the RTC and argued that he and his wife had equal rights to the custody of the child.
On 2003, Rosanna filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage on the ground that Mario
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with is essential marital obligations to her. Both cases
were consolidated.

According to Rosanna’s testimony, there are times when Mario would be unaccounted for a
whole night or an entire day. When Mario returned from Italy, he told Rosanna that he already quit
work. He had difficulty in managing his finances and there are times when he would be extremely
irritable and moody. He would leave their house for several days without informing Rosanna of his
whereabouts. Once he returned home, he would refuse to go out and would sleep for days. Mario
was also "hyper-active" late at night. Mario admitted that he was using marijuana and when
Rosanna gave birth to their child, Mario showed symptoms of paranoia when she was discharged
from the hospital. Mario took large cash advances from his and Rosanna’s construction company
which eventually became the reason for the closure of the company due to financial losses. When
Ma. Samantha had dengue fever and had to be confined, Mario would prevent the nurses from
administering the prescribed medications to the child. Mario became drug dependent and refused to
be admitted into a rehabilitation facility. When he was admitted, Rosanna informed the court about
it to hold the proceedings. However, Mario escaped form the facility. These, among others, showed
Mario’s psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations to her. To prove it,
Rosanna Rosanna presented Dr. Garcia, a physician-psychiatrist, as expert witness.

After evaluating the data, Dr. Garcia found Rosanna "psychologically capacitated to comply
with her essential marital obligations." According to Dr. Garcia, Rosanna "has adequate social,
interpersonal and occupational functioning." As for Mario, Dr. Garcia diagnosed him with narcissistic
antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse disorder with psychotic features. Mario's
narcissistic antisocial personality disorder, which Dr. Garcia found to be grave, with juridical
antecedence, and incurable, allegedly rendered Mario psychologically incapacitated to comply with
his essential marital obligations to Rosanna. Dr. Garcia thus recommended that the trial court void
Mario and Rosanna's marriage due to
Mario’s psychological incapacity.

On the contrary, Mario contended that it was Rosanna who was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. According to Mario, Rosanna would
box and kick him whenever they argued. She would bang her head on tables, doors, concrete walls,
and closets, and would even inflict corporal punishment on Ma. Samantha. Mario denied that he
was ever a threat to Rosanna and Ma. Samantha. He voluntarily committed himself for detoxification
at the Medical City and completed
his six-month rehabilitation in Seagulls. Between him and Rosanna, Mario argued that it was his wife
who was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations to him. Rosanna
insisted on living with her parents despite having her own family, resulting in her parents constantly
intruding into their marital life.

RTC RULING:

Rosanna discharged the burden of proving Mario's psychological incapacity. It was clearly
shown from Mario's actuation that he never really cared about the well-being of his family. He never
commiserated with Rosanna during her difficult times.

CA RULING:

Reversed RTC’s ruling. CA found Dr. Garcia's psychiatric evaluation of Mario to be

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the marriage is void due to psychological incapacity- YES
a. W/n Article nullity of marriage under 36 of the Family Code violates the right to
liberty, personal autonomy, and human dignity of Filipinos
b. W/n psychological incapacity has juridical antecedence and must be medically or
clinically identifiable at the time of the celebration of marriage
c. W/n psychological incapacity is incurable
d. W/n expert opinion is competent evidence to prove psychological incapacity
e. W/n psychological incapacity may be relative to each couple
2. Whether or not Rosanna has the rightful custody over Ma. Samantha- YES

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
 The testimony of Dr. Garcia was reliable, having been subjected to cross-examination by
Mario’s counsel
 Psychological incapacity need not be grounded on a particular psychological illness
 Psychological incapacity is incurable and manifested by ingrained behavior during the
marriage
 The existence of grounds for legal separation does not preclude a finding of psychological
incapacity on the part of one or both of the spouses.
 Psychological incapacity may be absolute or relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against every one of the same sex.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
  His past drug use is, at best, only a ground for legal separation, not for nullity of marriage
due to psychological incapacity

RULING:
Psychological incapacity as a ground for voiding marriages is provided in Article 36 of the Family
Code

ARTICLE 36. 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.

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE NEEDED:

The first Molina guideline reiterates the fundamental rule in evidence that one who asserts a
claim must prove it. Specifically, in psychological incapacity cases, it is the plaintiff-spouse who
proves the existence of psychological incapacity. Plaintiff-spouse must prove his or her case with
clear and convincing evidence. This is a quantum of proof that requires more than preponderant
evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

CONCEPT:

To recall, the term "psychological incapacity" was first defined by this Court in Santos as a
"mental (not physical) incapacity"to comply with the essential marital obligations. By equating
psychological incapacity to a "mental incapacity" and to "personality disorders," this Court went
against the intent behind Article 36. The Code Committee was clear that psychological incapacity is
not a mental incapacity. Psychological incapacity must consist in a lack of understanding of the
essential obligations of marriage, making the marriage void ab initio. Psychological incapacity is also
not a personality disorder, as explained by amicus curiae Dean Sylvia Estrada-Claudio.

The court now categorically abandons the second Molina guideline. 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. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to
understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations. Proof of
these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been
present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that
they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.

JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE:

Difficult to prove as it may be, a party to a nullity case is still required to prove juridical
antecedence because it is an explicit requirement of the law. Proof of juridically antecedent
psychological incapacity may consist of testimonies describing the environment where the
supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to a particular behavior. Not being an
illness in a medical sense, psychological incapacity is not something to be cured. And even if it were
a mental disorder, it
cannot be described in terms of being curable or incurable. Dean Estrada-Claudio explained that true
mental disorders follow a probable course or outcome, called "prognosis," that can either be self-
limited or remain "stable across time and consistent in situations." Psychological incapacity is
incurable in the legal sense. This means that the incapacity is so enduring and persistent with
respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality
structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the
inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.

ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS:

Molina provides that the essential marital obligations are "those embraced by Articles 68 up
to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221[,] and 225 of
the same Code in regard to parents and their children." It is true that marriage is a contract primarily
between the spouses; but its cause remains to be the establishment of not just conjugal but also
family life. The spouses' obligations to their children, once children are conceived, is as much a part
of the spouses' obligations to each other. Failure to perform these obligations to their children
may be a ground to nullify a spouse's marriage.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL APELLATE MATRIMONIAL TRIBUNAL

The persuasive effect of the decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
Catholic Church of the Philippines on nullity cases pending before secular courts is retained. As such,
Canon 1095 should be taken into account in interpreting Article 36 and in deciding psychological
incapacity cases. Therefore, while Article 36 of the Family Code is similarly worded to the third
paragraph of Canon 1095, canonical decisions based on the second paragraph should likewise have a
persuasive effect in secular decisions on psychological incapacity, if we are to avoid anomalous
situations where canonically void marriages remain valid under civil law. The above discussions
notwithstanding, canonical decisions are, to reiterate, merely persuasive and not binding on secular
courts.

MARRIAGE IS VOID- MARIO IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED

Rosanna discharged the burden of proof required to nullify her marriage to Mario. Clear and
convincing evidence of Mario's psychological incapacity consisted mainly of testimony on Mario's
personality structure and how it was formed primarily through his childhood and adult experiences,
well before he married Rosanna. His psychopathology has its root causes. There were childhood and
adolescent precursors which had led to the development of his psychological deficits. Mario has a
narcissistic-antisocial personality disorder. He exhibits chronic irresponsibility, impulsivity and lack of
genuine remorse, lack of empathy and a sense of entitlement. While he may have satisfactorily
endeared himself to his lone child, he miserably failed to comply with his vital marital obligations.

EXPERT TESTIMONY

While Dr. Garcia’s expert opinion was no longer required, it was still given credence by the
court. CA was wrong in discounting Dr. Garcia’s entire opinion that it cannot be considered because
she did not examine Mario herself. Unlike ordinary witnesses who must have personal knowledge of
the matters they testify on, expert witnesses do not testify in court because they have personal
knowledge of the facts of the case. The credibility of expert witnesses does not inhere in their
person; rather, their testimony is sought because of their special knowledge, skill, experience, or
training that ordinary persons and judges do not have. While ideally, the person to be diagnosed
should be personally interviewed, it is accepted practice in psychiatry to base a person's psychiatric
history on collateral information, or information from sources aside from the person evaluated. So
long as the totality of evidence sufficiently proves the psychological incapacity of one of both
spouses, a decree of nullity of marriage may be issued.
ARTICLE 147 GOVERNS THE PROPERTY RELATION BETWEEN THE SPOUSES

There is no showing that the marriage was incestuous or void due to public policy. They
likewise lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife until they separated in 2000. Being
capacitated to marry each other and having lived exclusively with each other albeit under a void
marriage, Article 147 of the Family Code governs their property relations. Under Article 147, wages
and salaries earned by the parties during their cohabitation shall be equally divided between them.
This is regardless of who worked to earn the wage or salary. However, if a piece of property was
obtained through only one party's effort, work, or industry, and there is proof that the other did not
contribute through the care and maintenance of the family and of the household, the property
acquired during the cohabitation shall be solely owned by the party who actually worked to acquire
the property.

ROSANNA HAS RIGHTFUL CUSTODY OVER MA.SAMANTHA

Between them, Rosanna showed greater care and devotion to Ma. Samantha. Even when
they still lived together, Rosanna had been more available to her child. She raised Ma. Samantha on
her own since she and Mario separated. Mario has not supported both mother and child since he
separated from Rosanna, even after he had claimed that he has been living "drug-free.