GR 196359 Delos Santos (Digest)
G.R. No. 196359 , May 11, 2021
ROSANNA L. TAN-ANDAL, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO VICTOR M. ANDAL, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Rosanna L. Tan-Andal sought the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Mario Victor M. Andal on the ground of psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The appellate court discounted the psychiatric evaluation by expert witness Dr. Valentina Del Fonso Garcia because it was based on collateral information from Rosanna, their daughter, and Rosanna’s sister, and not on a personal examination of Mario. The Court of Appeals also noted Rosanna’s emphasis on Mario’s drug addiction, which it held was only a ground for legal separation. Dr. Garcia’s analysis, however, considered independent evidence, including a personal history handwritten by Mario during his drug rehabilitation.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the totality of evidence presented by Rosanna sufficiently proves Mario’s psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations, warranting the nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
RULING
The ponencia, with which Justice Delos Santos concurs, ruled that Rosanna proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mario was psychologically incapacitated. The Court of Appeals erred in discounting Dr. Garcia’s expert opinion solely because Mario was not personally examined; the totality of evidence, including the handwritten personal history, was sufficient. The ruling clarifies that psychological incapacity need not be grounded on a particular personality disorder alone and that the incurability requirement refers to the incapacity to fulfill marital obligations, not necessarily a medical or clinical permanence. The standard of proof in such cases is clear and convincing evidence, which is higher than preponderance of evidence but lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Molina guidelines should serve as evidentiary guideposts, not a strict checklist. The property regime of the parties is governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, and the custody issue is moot as their daughter has attained majority.