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 Review concerning the nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The concurring opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier reflects on the conceptual evolution and judicial application of psychological incapacity. The opinion discusses the prototypical conception of psychological incapacity as developed through Supreme Court decisions, particularly citing the binding rules established in Republic v. Molina. It notes that the definition has depended on judicial interpretation, requiring the incapacity to be a “most serious case of personality disorder” characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The opinion highlights the practical challenges in proving these elements, often necessitating expert testimony from clinical psychologists or psychiatrists, and points out the typically one-sided narrative in such cases where the State rarely presents countervailing evidence.

ISSUE

The core issue addressed in the concurring opinion is the proper judicial understanding and application of the concept of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, including the standards of proof and the practical difficulties in establishing its elements, such as the medically identified personality disorder and its gravity, incurability, and antecedence.

RULING

Justice Lazaro-Javier concurs in the result of the ponencia (the main decision by Justice Leonen) to grant the Petition for Review, reverse the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 25, 2010, and reinstate the Regional Trial Court Decision dated May 9, 2007. The concurrence is based on the view that Article 36 should be interpreted and implemented generously, consistent with constitutional rights to personal liberty and privacy, and with a culturally competent understanding of the law. The opinion emphasizes that judicial decrees should restrain heartlessness when a marriage has irreparably ended, even if they cannot change hearts. It agrees with the incremental changes proposed by the ponencia but expresses a desire for a more deconstructive approach to the remedy of psychological incapacity.