The Philippine Supreme Court in the case of Rosanna L. Tan-Andal vs. Mario Victor M. Andal (G.R. 196359, May 11, 2021) has ruled to abandon the requirement for a medical or clinical diagnosis to prove psychological incapacity in a marriage. Rosanna L. Tan filed a case against her husband, Mario Victor M. Andal, for his alleged psychological incapacity, which she claims has rendered him unable to comply with his essential marital obligations.
In the past, the Court required the root cause of psychological incapacity to be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision. However, in the case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal, the Court categorically abandoned this requirement, stating that psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion.
Instead, the Court now requires proof of the durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, which manifest through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermine the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for them to understand and, more importantly, to comply with their essential marital obligations. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.
The Court also clarified that the psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is incurable, not in the medical sense, but in the legal sense. This means that the incapacity must be grave, rooted in the person's character, and existing at the time of the marriage, and that it is impossible to change or cure.
This ruling has significant implications for cases involving psychological incapacity in marriages in the Philippines, as it provides a more flexible approach to proving such incapacity. It also emphasizes the importance of examining a person's personality structure and its impact on their ability to fulfill their marital obligations.
"Far from what was intended by the Court, Molina has become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit and be bound by it" the decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen stated. This suggests that the Court's interpretation of Article 36 has made it more difficult for people to obtain a declaration of nullity of marriage in the Philippines. However, the Court does not provide further details on how exactly its previous interpretation has affected the process of declaring nullity of marriage in the Philippines.
FACTS: Mario and Rosanna got married on 16 December 1995 and had a daughter named Ma. Samantha. Rosanna claimed that Mario was emotionally immature, irresponsible, irritable, psychologically imbalanced, and irritable even before their marriage. Mario allegedly used drugs and would disappear for days without informing Rosanna of his whereabouts. After Ma. Samantha's birth, Mario refused to assist Rosanna in the hospital, and when she and their daughter were discharged, he exhibited symptoms of paranoia. Eventually, Rosanna had to close her business due to financial losses, which she attributed to Mario's drug use.Rosanna petitioned the court to voluntarily commit Mario for drug rehabilitation, but he escaped from the Seagulls Flight Foundation, where he was eventually recommitted until his release on 24 December 2000. Since then, Rosanna and Mario have separated, and Mario has failed to provide support to Rosanna and their daughter. Rosanna claimed that Mario's behavior showed his psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations to her.
To prove Mario's psychological incapacity, Rosanna presented an expert witness, Dr. Valentina Del Fonso Garcia, a physician-psychiatrist, who diagnosed Mario with narcissistic antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse disorder with psychotic features. The trial court granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that Dr. Garcia's diagnosis was unscientific and unreliable.
Rosanna appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that psychological incapacity need not be grounded on a particular psychological illness and that incurability is manifested by ingrained behavior shown during the marriage by the psychologically incapacitated spouse.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void ab initio?
HELD: The marriage is void ab initio.
The Supreme held that psychological incapacity need not be medically or clinically identified, contrary to the second guideline in Molina, which requires the root cause of the psychological incapacity to be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision.
The court abandoned this guideline and stated that there must be proof of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. This proof need not be given by an expert, but ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before they got married may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.
As to the juridical antecedence requirement, the court held that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is incurable, not in the medical sense, but in the legal sense. This means that the incapacity must be grave, rooted in the history of the party alleging it, and incurable due to its nature.
Posts
