GR 196359 J Lopez (Digest)
G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021
ROSANNA L. TAN-ANDAL, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO VICTOR M. ANDAL, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
This is a concurring opinion by Justice Lopez in the case concerning a petition to declare a marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity). The ponencia (Decision by Justice Leonen) and several other Justices issued separate opinions. Justice Lopez concurs with the result of the ponencia, which found that the totality of evidence clearly points to the psychological incapacity of the respondent, Mario, to comply with his essential marital obligations, rendering the marriage null and void. The opinion focuses on re-examining the application of Article 36 in light of the guidelines in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, emphasizing two pivotal developments: the quantum of proof required and the nature of psychological incapacity as a legal concept.
ISSUE
The primary issues addressed in the concurring opinion are: (1) What is the required quantum of proof in nullity of marriage cases based on psychological incapacity? and (2) What is the nature of psychological incapacity as a concept under Article 36 of the Family Code?
RULING
1. The quantum of proof required to nullify a marriage based on psychological incapacity is “clear and convincing evidence.” This standard is higher than “preponderance of evidence” typically used in civil cases. It is intermediate, being more than preponderance but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. It requires evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. This heightened standard is consistent with the state policy to protect the sanctity of marriage and the presumption of its validity, which can only be overturned by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 is a legal concept, not a medical one. It escapes specific definition and its determination is left to the courts on a case-to-case basis. It need not be a mental or personality disorder identified by experts. The law does not require a medical examination of the person concerned. The root cause must be identified and shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Expert testimony, while not mandatory, is crucial to assist the court in its determination. The incapacity must be shown to be grave, serious, and incurable, existing at the time of the marriage celebration.