1

Case Comment

Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, 11 May 2021

Mary Nove V. Patangan

Andres Bonifacio College of Law

Persons and Family Relations

Dean Angela Q. Pacatang-Barbaso, LLM

October 24, 2021

INTRODUCTION

Facts

In 1995, Rosanna Tan and Mario Victor Andal married each other. They were blessed with

one child. However, even before their marriage, Rosanna already observed Mario to be

extremely irritable and moody. Earlier in their marriage, Rosanna also observed Mario to be

emotionally immature, irresponsible, irritable, and psychologically imbalanced. Rosanna later

learned that Mario was a drug addict.

Due to his erratic behavior, Rosanna caused Mario to be confined in a drug rehab center

twice. Mario’s irresponsibility even caused the closure of their family business. Mario also

exposed their daughter to his drug use. In December 2000, fed up with Mario, Rosanna chose to

live separately from him. In August 2003, Rosanna filed a petition to have her marriage with

Mario be declared void on the ground that Mario was psychologically incapacitated to perform

the essential marital obligations.

To prove her case, she presented a psychologist (Dr. Fonso Garcia) who, after

interviewing Rosanna, Rosanna’s daughter, and Rosanna’s sister, concluded that Mario was

psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations. Dr. Garcia did not

interview Mario as the latter, despite invitation, refused an interview. In her assessment, Dr.

Garcia found Mario to be suffering from Narcissistic Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Procedural History

In May 2007, the trial court voided the marriage between Rosanna and Mario as it ruled

that Rosanna was able to prove her case.

The Court of Appeals however reversed the trial court on the ground that the findings of

Dr. Garcia were unscientific and unreliable because she diagnosed Mario without interviewing

him.

Ruling

Dr. Garcia’s expert testimony is given due weight by the Supreme Court. The Court also

found that the totality of evidence on record shows that Mario suffers from psychological

incapacity to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage. That the evidence on record clearly and

convincingly establish that: (i) Mario is incognizant of his marital obligations to a degree that

renders him incapable of fulfilling his marital obligations; and (ii) such incapacity existed even

prior to the marriage. Moreover, the Court ruled that the facts established by said evidence

indicate that at the time of his marriage, Mario failed to appreciate and fulfill the essential

marital obligations, as shown by his failure to provide emotional and financial support to his

family due to his unstable behavior.1 Further, Mario's psychological state also hampered his

ability to provide his daughter with moral and spiritual guidance.2

However, the Supreme Court En Banc took the opportunity to revisit the Molina

Guidelines and the other nullity cases decided by the Supreme Court after Molina. The Court set

new guidelines in determining psychological incapacity3:

1. The burden of proof in proving psychological incapacity is still on the plaintiff. The Supreme

Court however clarified that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and

convincing evidence which is more than preponderant evidence (ordinary civil cases) but less

than proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases). The Court’s reasoning is based on the

1
As required by Articles 68 and 220 of the Family Code
2
As required by Article 220 of the Family Code.
3
Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R.No.196359, May 11, 2021
 4

presumption of a valid marriage; a presumption can only be rebutted with clear and convincing

evidence.

2. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that

must be proven through expert testimony. 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.

3. Incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; incurable as to the partner.

Psychological 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. Previously in Republic v. CA and Molina (G.R. No. 108763), the

condition must be proven to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable in order to

constitute psychological incapacity.

4. As to gravity, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious

psychic cause. It is not necessary that it must be shown that the psychological incapacity is a

serious or dangerous illness BUT that “mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes,
 5

occasional emotional outbursts” are excluded. The psychological incapacity cannot be mere

“refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will.”

5. Juridical antecedence. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the

celebration of the marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its

solemnization.

6. Essential marital obligations are not limited to those between spouses. Hence, those covered

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.

7. The decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the

Philippines has persuasive effect on nullity cases pending before secular courts. Canonical

decisions are, to reiterate, merely persuasive and not binding on secular courts. Canonical

decisions are to only serve as evidence of the nullity of the secular marriage, but ultimately, the

elements of declaration of nullity under Article 36 must still be weighed by the judge.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that in voiding ill-equipped marriages, courts are

not really violating the inviolability of marriage as a social institution which is enshrined in no

less than the Constitution. Courts should not hesitate to declare such marriages void solely for

the sake of their permanence when, paradoxically, doing so destroyed the sanctity afforded to

marriage. In declaring ill-equipped marriages as void ab initio, the courts really assiduously

defend and promote the sanctity of marriage as an inviolable social institution. The foundation of

our society is thereby made all the more strong.

Thesis statements

The researcher submits the following propositions:

1. The requisite of juridical antecedence is indispensable and there are ramifications that might

arise when proving it before the Court.

2. The Court must have pointed out that psychological incapacity cannot solely pertain to the

parental authority and obligations of a parent to his or her child under Articles 220, 221, and 225

of the Family Code. The failure to comply the essential marital obligations under Articles 68 to

71 of the same Code should be the main focal point in finding that a person is indeed

psychologically incapacitated.

3. The requirement of clear and convincing evidence is not based solely on the presumption of

validity accorded to marriages but it is also premised on the State's policy to protect marriage as

a special contract of permanent union and an inviolable social institution.4

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The analysis and discussion will be divided into three subtopics.

In the first part, the researcher will discuss the indispensability of the requisite of juridical

antecedence and challenges of the litigants when proving it before the Court.

In the second part, the researcher will discuss why Article 68 to 71 should be the focal

point in finding that a person is indeed psychologically incapacitated.

Lastly, the researcher will discuss that although it is correct to say that the quantum of

proof required in nullity cases should be clear and convincing evidence, the researcher disagrees

with the Court’s reasoning that this requirement stems from solely on the presumption of validity

accorded to marriages. Rather, the researcher posits that higher quantum of proof is also

4
Family Code, Article 1.
 7

premised on the State's policy to protect marriage as a special contract of permanent union and

an inviolable social institution.5

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Part I: Ramifications of the requirement of juridical antecedence to the litigant’s battle in

proving psychological incapacity

Juridical antecedence is one of the three requisites laid down in Santos v. Santos 6 and was

further adopted in the subsequent cases as well as in the Molina guidelines. This requisite is

indispensable due to the fact that such requisite is embedded in the clear language of the law. As

Article 367reads: "[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."

Perceptibly, the peculiar operative phrase in Article 36 that "even if such incapacity becomes

manifest only after its solemnization" is the key in harmonizing the juridical antecedence

requisite of the law. Thus, the Court should have clarified and qualified in its ruling that this

requisite, as part of the Molina guidelines, is indispensable and must be proven before the Court.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe’s concurring opinion8 is quite telling and relevant with the

abovementioned observation:

The parameters of discovering psychological incapacity "at the time of the celebration, x

x x even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization" ought to be

refined. Accordingly, in handling cases of declaration of nullity of marriage on the

ground of psychological incapacity, judges must reconstruct the marital decision making

5
Family Code, Article 1.
6
Santos v. Santos, G.R.No. 187061, October 8, 2014
7
Family Code, Article 36
8
Justice Perlas-Bernabe, Separate Concurring Opinion, Tan-Andal v. Andal, pp.29-30
 8

process of an individual, just like inquisitive investigators. In particular, the judge must

trace back and examine all the manifestations before and during the marriage to find out

if such non-fulfillment relates to the intrinsic psychological makeup of the person relative

to his or her specific partner, and not just some mere difficulty that ordinary spouses, at

some point in time, are bound to go through. Accordingly, the judge must confirm that

the non-fulfillment was not caused solely by any factor that emerged only during the

marriage (e.g., a financial cns1s or accident which altered the personality of the spouse

only during the marriage and not merely reflective of his or her true psychological

makeup at the time of celebration) but one which, in all reasonable likelihood, existed at

the time the marriage was entered into. Overall, there must be recognition that

psychological incapacity is not legal separation or divorce, but a defect in the object of

consent at the time of celebration which makes the marriage null and void ab initio.

The fact that psychological incapacity is a ground to nullify the marriage based on the

lack of object of consent confirms the requirement of juridical antecedence. This requirement is

what separates psychological incapacity from legal separation and divorce.

As to the possible hardships of litigants in proving this requirement, the researcher posits

that petitioner (the wife or husband of the psychologically incapacitated) would be subjected to

difficulties and challenges in obtaining first-hand personal and non-hearsay evidence in order to

prove the root cause of the personality disorder of the respondent traceable to the respondent's

history antedating the marriage, most likely childhood or adolescence.

In practice, this would entail involving or in real terms co-opting the respondent and his or

her relatives, those who witnessed him or her grow up, in obtaining such evidence. This would

be either costly, impracticable, or impossible, depending on a number of factors beyond the

petitioner's control, such as the state and degree of animosity between the spouses, knowledge of

the respondent's whereabouts, the access of the petitioner and the expert to the respondent, and

the requirement that there should be no actual and appearance of collusion between the spouses.

The legal battle of the litigants can also become even more difficult in connection to the

evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence requirement that the plaintiff-spouse must

satisfy to prove that such psychological incapacity antedates the marriage and the overt

manifestations occurred only during the marriage. It is important to note that Clear and

Convincing evidence standard is a relatively difficult standard to satisfy as it requires that the

evidence be “substantially” more probable to be true. In layman’s term, under the clear and

convincing standard, the evidence must be substantially greater than a 50% likelihood of being

true unlike in Preponderance of Evidence, which only requires that the evidence be “more likely

than not” to prove the matter at hand.9

PART II: Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code should be the controlling focal point of the

essential marital obligations in the finding of psychological incapacity

Article 36 of the Family Code expressly provides that:

Art. 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.

Article 68 to 71 of the Family Code is considered as the essential marital obligations:

Article 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,

respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

Article 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement,

the court shall decide. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the
9
Ganancial v. Cabugao, G.R. No.203348, July 6, 2020
 10

latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the

exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with

the solidarity of the family.

Article 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The

expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the

community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their

separate properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income or fruits, such

obligations shall be satisfied from the separate properties

Article 71. The management of the household shall be the right and duty of both spouses.

The expenses for such management shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of

Article 70.

As can be gleaned from the enumeration, Article 68 articulates the essential marital obligations

of the spouses "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help

and support."

The sixth Molina guideline states that:

(6) The essential marital obligations must be 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. Such non-complied marital

obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the

text of the decision.10

10
Republic v. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
 11

Based on the guideline above, it has been expressed that the essential marital obligations do not

only pertain to that between the husband and wife, but further include "Articles 220, 221, and

225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children."

Meanwhile, Articles 220,11 221,12and 22513 pertain to parental authority over the spouses'

children, if they have so. The researcher agrees with Justice Perlas Bernabe’s concurring opinion

that “while parental authority and duties to their children are significant to family life, Articles

68 to 71 should be deemed as the controlling focal point of the essential marital obligations

relevant to the finding of a spouse's psychological incapacity to his or her specific partner.”14

11
Article 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with respect to their unemancipated
children or wards the following rights and duties:
(]) To keep them in their company, to support, educate, and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to
provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means;
(2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding;
(3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self discip!ine, self-
reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of
citizenship;
( 4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and
association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their
health, studies and morals;
(5) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
( 6) To demand from them respect and obedience;
(7) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and
(8) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians
12
Article 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and
damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their
parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law
13
Article 225. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of the
unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court appointment. In case of disagreement, the father's
decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary. Where the market value of the property or the
annual income of the child exceeds l"50,000, the parent concerned shall be required to furnish a bond in such
amount as the court may determine, but not less than ten per centum (10%) of the value of the property or annual
income, to guarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general guardians. A verified petition for
approval of the bond shall be filed in the proper court of the place where the child resides, or, if the child resides in a
foreign country, in the proper court of the place where the property or any part thereof is situated. The petition shall
be docketed as a summary special proceeding in which all incidents and issues regarding the performance of the
obligations referred to in the second paragraph of this Article shall be heard and resolved. The ordinary rules on
guardianship shall be merely suppletory except when the child is under substitute parental authority, or the guardian
is a stranger, or a parent has remarried, in which case the ordinary rules on guardianship shall apply.
14
Justice Perlas Bernabe, Concurring Opinion, Tan-Andal v. Andal
 12

Justice Perlas-Bernabe15 further states that:

As defined by law, marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and

a woman.16 Thus, in declaring marriages void from the beginning, the requirements

pertaining to the spouses are those considered by law, e.g., Article 35, absence of the

essential or formal requisites of marriage; Article 37, relationship of the spouses; Article

38, relationship of the spouses by reasons of public policy.

In the same vein, declaring a marriage void under Article 36 should primarily pertain to

the failure to assume the essential marital obligations as a spouse, and only incidentally,

as a father or mother. To reiterate, psychological incapacity is determined based on the

distinct interpersonal relationship between the spouses, making the incapacity a barrier to

the relational self-giving between husband and wife. However, a person's relationship

between his or her spouse is not necessarily the same as his or her relationship to his or

her children. As mentioned, the law accounts for relative psychological incapacity,

accounting for the unique individuality of each person. Thus, a person's psychological

incapacity to fulfill his or her obligation to become a loving, faithful, or supportive

husband or wife does not necessarily mean that he or she is unable to fully assume his or

her role as loving father or mother. Conversely, not because a person fails to become a

loving and supporting father or mother, he or she is psychologically incapacitated to

assume the essential marital obligations as regards his or her partner. To note, in a long

line of cases,17 psychological incapacity cases were based on the failure to assume the

15
Id,supra
16
Family Code, Article 1
17
Republic v. Mola Cruz, G.R. No. 236629, July 23, 2018; Republicv. Javier, G.R. No. 210518, April 18 , 2018 861
SCRA 682· Tani-De la Fuente v. De la Fuente, Jr., 807 Phil 31 (2017); Aurelio v. Aurelio, 665 Phil'. 693 (201 l);
ca'macho-Reyes v. Reyes, 642 Phil. 602 (2010); Azcueta v. Republic, 606 Phil. 177 (2009); Ngo Te, supra note 52;
and Antonio v. Reyes
 13

essential marital obligations not with respect to one's children, but towards the other

spouse. In some instances, the children would get involved but it is usually only with

respect to the obligation to support the family. As such, considering the complexity of the

different relationships, the Court must discern that psychological incapacity cannot

solely pertain to the parental authority and obligations of a parent to his or her

child under Articles 220, 221, and 225 as stated in Molina, without showing their

relation to the essential marital obligations between spouses under Articles 68 to 71 of the

Family Code. This is because, as discussed, psychological incapacity ultimately relates to

the essential marital obligations between spouses under Articles 68 to 71 of the Family

Code. Incidentally, however, the alleged psychologically incapacitated spouse's behavior

to his or her children may be indicative of his or her failure to meet the essential marital

obligations to his or her partner. After all, a determination of psychological incapacity

requires a holistic examination of all relevant factors to the end of determining the legal

gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence as discussed herein

As enunciated in the ruling of the case, this specific guideline should not be construed as

rigid checklist but mere guidelines. The researcher would suggest that the Court must emphasize

that this specific guideline should be deemed indispensable as well similar to the requisite of

juridical antecedence.

This requisite is indispensable and relevant to the finding of psychological incapacity

because of the express provision in Article 36 of the Family Code. This requisite is fatal to the

case of the parties and must be given probative weight by the court when proven with clear and

convincing evidence.
 14

PART III: The requirement of clear and convincing evidence is necessitated not only

because of the presumption of validity of marriage but also because of the State's policy to

protect marriage as an inviolable social institution.

The Court holds that in cases involving nullity of marriage, the plaintiff-spouse must

prove his or her case through clear and convincing evidence due to the presumption of validity of

marriages.18 The researcher submits, however, that this higher evidentiary standard is also

grounded on the characterization of marriage under law. Article 1 of the Family Code defines

marriage. It states:

ARTICLE I. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a

woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family

life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature,

consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except

that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the

limits provided by this Code.

This said provision echoes the State policy enshrined in Article XV of the 1987 Constitution,

thus:

SECTION I. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.

Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

SECTION 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family

and shall be protected by the State.

The Constitution characterizes marriage as an inviolable social institution, thus mere

preponderance of evidence, which is the standard of evidence required to nullify ordinary civil

contracts, will not suffice. A higher standard of evidence must be required in recognition of the
18
Tan-Andal v. Andal, p.27
 15

status of marriage as a special contract of permanent union that is protected by the Constitution.

To afford the institution of marriage the necessary protection against arbitrary dissolution of the

marriage bond, clear and convincing evidence of the allegations must therefore be required.

Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm

belief or conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. This standard of proof is

derived from American common law. It is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (for criminal

cases) but greater than preponderance of evidence (for civil cases). The degree of believability is

higher than that of an ordinary civil case. Civil cases only require a preponderance of evidence to

meet the required burden of proof. 19

This being the case, the ruling in Antonio v. Reyes, the first case that found to have

satisfied all the requirements of Molina, should be overturned insofar as the quantum of proof

required in an action for declaration of nullity under Article 36 is concerned. The Court ruled in

Antonio v. Reyes:

As in all civil matters, the petitioner in an action for declaration of nullity under Article

36 must be able to establish the cause of action with a preponderance of evidence.

However, since the action cannot be considered as a non-public matter between private

parties, but is impressed with State interest, the Family Code likewise requires the

participation of the State, through the prosecuting attorney, fiscal, or Solicitor General, to

take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not

fabricated or suppressed. Thus, even if the petitioner is able establish the psychological

incapacity of respondent with preponderant evidence, any finding of collusion among the

parties would necessarily negate such proofs.20

19
Riguer v. Mateo, G.R. No.222538, June 21, 2017
20
Antonio v. Reyes, G.R.No. 155800, March 10, 2006
 16

Conclusion

In summary, the researcher maintains that the requirement of proving juridical

antecedence is indispensable as it is expressly provided by law, and there are ramifications that

might arise when proving it before the Court due to the higher burden of proof which is the clear

and convincing evidence standard.

The researcher also underscores the need in clarifying that psychological incapacity

cannot solely pertain to the parental authority and obligations of a parent to his or her child under

Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the Family Code but the essential marital obligations under

Articles 68 to 71 of the same Code should be considered as the main focal point in finding that a

person is indeed psychologically incapacitated.

As to the final point, the researcher emphasizes that the higher evidentiary standard of

clear and convincing evidence is not based solely on the presumption of validity of marriage but

it is also premised on the State's policy to protect marriage as a special contract of permanent

union and an inviolable social institution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antonio v. Reyes, G.R.No. 155800, March 10, 2006

Aurelio v. Aurelio, 665 Phil'. 693 (201 l)

Azcueta v. Republic, 606 Phil. 177 (2009);

Family Code of the Philippines

Justice Perlas-Bernabe, Separate Concurring Opinion in Tan-Andal v. Andal, pp.29-30

Ganancial v. Cabugao, G.R. No.203348, July 6, 2020

Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R.No. 161793, February 13, 2009

Republic v. Javier, G.R. No. 210518, April 18 , 2018 861 SCRA 682·

Republic v. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997

Republic v. Mola Cruz, G.R. No. 236699, July 23, 2018

Reyes v. Reyes, 642 Phil. 602 (2010)

Riguer v. Mateo, G.R. No.222538, June 21, 2017

Santos v. Santos, G.R.No. 187061, October 8, 2014

Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, 11 May 2021

Tani-De la Fuente v. De la Fuente, Jr., 807 Phil 31 (2017)