G.R. No. 196359 , May 11, 2021
ROSANNA L. TAN-ANDAL, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO VICTOR M. ANDAL, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case involves a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity. The Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Inting reflects his views on amending the guidelines set forth in Republic v. Molina regarding the interpretation of psychological incapacity. The opinion traces the legal development of the concept from Santos v. CA, which defined it as a mental incapacity rendering a party truly incognitive of basic marital covenants, to the strict guidelines laid down in Molina. The Molina guidelines required, among other things, that the root cause be medically identified and proven by experts, be grave, incurable, and existing at the time of marriage. The opinion notes that the strict application of Molina has often resulted in the denial of petitions, as illustrated in cases like Republic v. Deang, Dedel v. Court of Appeals, and Paz v. Paz, where behaviors such as infidelity, abandonment, irresponsibility, or emotional immaturity were deemed insufficient to constitute psychological incapacity. However, the opinion also acknowledges that in select cases, such as Halili v. Santos-Halili, the Court has applied the concept with resiliency. The opinion emphasizes that psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not a medical one, and its incurability refers to the incapacity to perform marital obligations with respect to a specific partner, not a medical prognosis.

ISSUE

Whether the guidelines in Republic v. Molina for interpreting and applying psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code should be amended, and whether the marriage between Rosanna L. Tan-Andal and Mario Victor M. Andal should be declared null and void based on the latter’s psychological incapacity.

RULING

Justice Inting concurs with the ponencia‘s amendments to the Molina guidelines. He supports the conclusion that the totality of evidence presented by petitioner Rosanna L. Tan-Andal clearly established that respondent Mario Victor M. Andal was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations. Specifically, it was established that: (1) Mario suffers from Narcissistic Antisocial Personality Disorder and Substance Abuse Disorder with Psychotic Features; (2) these mental disorders have rendered him psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations to Rosanna and their child; and (3) Mario’s psychological incapacity, which is grave and incurable with respect to his relationship with Rosanna, existed prior to the celebration of their marriage. Therefore, the marriage is void under Article 36 of the Family Code. Justice Inting further emphasizes that the Molina guidelines, even as amended, are mere guidelines to be applied on a case-to-case basis. He votes to GRANT the petition and DECLARE the marriage null and void.