FACTS:
Mario Victor M. Andal (Mario) and Rosanna L. Tan (Rosanna) were married on
16 December 1995. On 27 July 1996, Rosanna gave birth to Ma. Samantha,
the only child of the parties. The family lived in a duplex in Paranaque City,
with Rosanna’s parents living in the other half of the duplex.
According to Rosanna, even before their marriage, Mario would be extremely
irritable and moody. She also had observed, at the beginning of their
marriage, that Mario is emotionally immature, irresponsible, irritable, and
psychologically imbalanced. Mario would also leave their house for several
days without informing Rosanna of his whereabouts, and whenever he
returned home, he would refuse to go out and would sleep for days. When
Rosanna confronted Mario about his erratic behavior, she learned that Mario
was using drugs. Mario promised to stop using it, but he did not keep his
promise.
When Rosanna gave birth to Ma. Samantha, Mario allegedly did not assist
her, leaving her in the hospital even though he knows that she could not
move until the effects of the anesthesia had worn off. Mario would only
return to the hospital later that evening to sleep. Moreover, when Rosanna
and Ma. Samantha were discharged from the hospital, Mario showed
symptoms of paranoia. Further, during the times when Ma. Samantha was
sick, Mario would instead ignore her.
Rosanna had to eventually closed Design and Construction Matrix due to
financial losses. Mario’s access to the company funds for his drug use
allegedly used up the funds.
Rosanna then petitioned the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) to voluntarily
commit Mario for drug rehabilitation at the National Bureau of Investigation
Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, and, eventually, at the Seagulls Flight
Foundation (Seagulls). Mario escaped from Seagulls on 14 February 200, but
he was recommitted again and remained confined there until 24 December
2000, when the rehabilitation center released Mario without completing his
rehabilitation program.
Since Mario’s premature release from the rehabilitation center, Rosanna and
Mario had separated and had not lived together. Mario also failed to give
support to Rosanna and Ma. Samantha.
These events, according to Rosanna, showed Mario’s psychological
incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations to her.
To prove Mario’s psychological incapacity, Rosanna presented Dr. Valentina
Del Fonso Garcia (Dr. Garcia), a physician-psychiatrist, as expert witness. Dr.
Garcia diagnosed him with narcissistic antisocial personality disorder and
substance abuse disorder with psychotic features. Mario’s narcissistic
antisocial personality disorder, which Dr. Garcia found to be grave, with
juridical antecedence, and incurable, allegedly rendered Mario
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations
to Rosanna. Dr. Garcia testified that Mario’s personality disorder was grave
and “deeply rooted” in his character.
The Regional Trial Court voided the marriage between Rosanna and Mario as
it ruled that Rosanna discharged the burden of proving Mario’s psychological
incapacity. The Court of Appeals however reversed the trial court’s decision
and found that Dr. Garcia’s psychiatric evaluation of Mario to be “unscientific
and unreliable” since she diagnosed Mario without interviewing him. The
Court of Appeals ruled that Dr. Garcia “was working on pure suppositions and
second-hand information fed to her by one side.”
Rosanna contends, before the Supreme Court, that psychological incapacity
need not be grounded on a particular psychological illness psychological
incapacity need not be grounded on a particular psychological illness.
Rosanna adds that psychological incapacity is incurable, but not necessarily
in a medical or clinical sense. For her, incurability is manifested by ingrained
behavior manifested during the marriage by the psychologically
incapacitated spouse.
ISSUE:
Whether or not psychological incapacity needs to be medically or clinically
identified.
RULING:
No. It was in Molina where this Court laid down the guidelines for interpreting
and applying Article 36. Under the second guideline in Molina, the root cause
of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
explained in the decision. In Santos vs. Court of Appeals (“Santos”) the term
psychological incapacity” was first defined as a “mental (not physical)
incapacity” to comply with the essential marital obligations. “Psychological
incapacity” must refer to “the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage.” In the past, the Court was inconsistent in
requiring expert evidence in psychological incapacity cases. Not all cases
promulgated after Marcos required the totality of evidence rule.
In light of the foregoing, the Court now categorically abandons the second
Molina guideline. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor
a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. 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.
As to the juridical antecedence requirement, the Court held that the
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is incurable, not
in the medical sense, but in the legal sense; hence, the third Molina guideline
is amended accordingly. This means that the 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.
Considering the foregoing, the Court finds Mario psychologically
incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations. Rosanna
discharged the burden of proof required to nullify her marriage to Mario.
Clear and convincing evidence of Mario’s psychological incapacity consisted
mainly of testimony on Mario’s personality structure and how it was formed
primarily through his childhood and adult experiences, well before he
married Rosanna. In addition to Rosanna’s testimony, Dr. Garcia recounted
how Mario developed traits exhibiting chronic irresponsibility, impulsivity and
lack of genuine remorse, lack of empathy, and sense of entitlement-
behaviors manifesting his inherent psychological incapacity to comply with
his essential marital obligations.
