Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No.

196359
Republic v. Romero, G.R. Nos. 209180 & 209253, February 24, 2016
Republic v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 100975 (2001)
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina 268 SCRA 198 (1997)
G.R. No. 196359
ROSANNA L. TAN-ANDAL, petitioner
Vs.
MARIO VICTOR M. ANDAL, respondent

FACTS:

In 1995, Rosanna Tan and Mario Victor Andal married each other.. However, even before their
marriage, Rosanna already observed Mario to be extremely irritable and moody. Earlier in their
marriage, Rosanna also observed Mario to be emotionally immature, irresponsible, irritable, and
psychologically imbalanced and later learned that Mario was a drug addict. Due to his erratic
behavior, Rosanna caused Mario to be confined in a drug rehab center twice. Mario’s
irresponsibility even caused the closure of their family business. Mario also exposed their
daughter to his drug use. In December 2000, Rosanna chose to live separately from him. In
August 2003, Rosanna filed a petition to have her marriage with Mario be declared void on the
ground that Mario was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.

To prove her case, she presented a psychologist (Dr. Fonso Garcia) who, after interviewing
Rosanna, Rosanna’s daughter, and Rosanna’s sister, concluded that Mario was psychologically
incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations. Dr. Garcia did not interview Mario as the
latter, despite invitation, refused an interview. In her assessment, Dr. Garcia found Mario to be
suffering from Narcissistic Antisocial Personality Disorder.

In May 2007, the trial court voided the marriage between Rosanna and Mario as it ruled that
Rosanna was able to prove her case. The Court of Appeals however reversed the trial court on
the ground that the findings of Dr. Garcia was unscientific and unreliable because she diagnosed
Mario without interviewing him.

On appeal, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to revisit the Molina Guidelines and the
other nullity cases decided by the Supreme Court after Molina.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Rosanna and Mario is void.

HELD: Yes. Dr. Garcia’s expert testimony is given due weight. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court
declared, among others, that in psychological incapacity cases, expert testimony is NOT a
requirement.

The Court pronounced that psychological incapacity is not a medical but a legal concept
Below is the Supreme Court’s new set of guidelines in determining the existence of
psychological incapacity:

1. The burden of proof in proving psychological incapacity is still on the plaintiff. The Supreme
Court however clarified that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and
convincing evidence which is more than preponderant evidence (ordinary civil cases) but less
than proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases). This is because marriage is presumed valid
and, in this jurisdiction, a presumption can only be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence.

2. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that

must be proven through expert testimony. 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.

3. Incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; incurable as to the partner.
Psychological 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.

4. As to gravity, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious

psychic cause. It is not necessary that it must be shown that the psychological incapacity is a
serious or dangerous illness BUT that “mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts” are excluded. The psychological incapacity cannot be mere
“refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will.”

5. Juridical antecedence. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.

6. Essential marital obligations are not limited to those between spouses. Hence, those covered
by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles
220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children.

7. The decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the
Philippines has persuasive effect on nullity cases pending before secular courts. Canonical
decisions are, to reiterate, merely persuasive and not binding on secular courts. Canonical
decisions are to only serve as evidence of the nullity of the secular marriage, but ultimately, the
elements of declaration of nullity under Article 36 must still be weighed by the judge.
 FIRST DIVISION

February 24, 2016

G.R. No. 209180

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
REGHIS M. ROMERO II and OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 209253

OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Petitioner,

vs.
REGHIS M. ROMERO II, Respondent.

Republic V Romero Case Digest

FACTS:
Reghis and Olivia were married and had two children. They met when Reghis helped Olivia and
her family who were stranded along Kennon Road, Baguio City. As closeness was developed
with Olivia’s family. Reghis courted Olivia to please her parents and eventually they became
sweethearts. Feeling Olivia’s demanding attitude could prevent him from reaching his family
and personal goals, Reghis tried breaking up with Olivia but Olivia refused and they got married.
They fought with each other and had a turbulent and tumultuous marriage. Reghis could not
forgive Olivia for dragging him into marriage. They became more distant from each other when
Reghis started working then Olivia started complaining that Reghis failed his responsibilities as a
husband and a father. They parted ways in 1986.

On June 16, 1998, Reghis filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity testifying that first, he married Olivia not out of love but out of desire
to please Olivia’s family. Second, he was not ready to comply with the essential marital
obligations. Third, Olivia is in a relationship with Eddie Garcia when they parted ways.
Additionally, Dr. Basilio testified that Reghis suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Personality
Disorder (OCPD).

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s declaration of nullity on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
HELD:
No. The petitions are GRANTED. The decision dated March 21, 2013 and the resolution dated
September 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA- GR. CV No. 94337 are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed under
article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, as amended, is DISMISSED.
 SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 109975 February 9, 2001

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG, respondent.

FACTS:
Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag and begot two children. Avelino would
disappear for months without explanation and attend to drinking sprees with friends and return
home drunk when with the family; forced his wife to have sexual intercourse and if she resisted,
would inflict injure to the latter. He left his family again and never heard of him. Erlinda was
constrained to look for a job to fend for themselves. Erlinda then learned that Avelino was
imprisoned for some crime, and that he escaped from jail who remains at-large at date. Erlinda
filed for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family Code. The trial court rendered a decision declaring the marriage
void under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of
Appeals raising that the lower court erred in declaring the appellee’s marriage to Avelino
Dagdag null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter, pursuant to Article
36 of the Family Code, the psychological incapacity of the nature contemplated by the law not
having been proven to exist. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court

ISSUE: Whether or not immaturity and irresponsibility, habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive from
justice constitutes psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code to declare the
marriage null and void.

RULING: No. The ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina case is reiterated herein in
which the Court laid down the following GUIDELINES in the interpretation and application of
Article 36 of the Family Code:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.

(2) 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. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, respondents.

Facts:

Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985. After a year of marriage, Reynaldo
showed signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility” as a husband and a father since first, he
preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends on whom he squandered his money.
Second, He depended on his parents for aid and assistance. Third, he was never honest with his
wife in regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between them. Roridel became the
sole breadwinner of the family when Reynaldo was relieved from his job.

In October 1986 the couple had a very intense quarrel, as a result of which their relationship was
estranged. In March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and went to live with her
parents in Baguio City. A few weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, and had since
then abandoned them and admitted that they can no longer live together as husband and wife but
contended that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels were due to first, Roridel’s strange
behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after their marriage. Second,
Roridel’s refusal to perform some of marital duties such cooking meals. Third, Roridel’s failure
to run the household and handle their finances.

Roridel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina . Evidence
for Roridel consisted of her own testimony, that of two of her friends, a social worker, and a
psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. Reynaldo did not present any
evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial conference. RTC declared the marriage void.
The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the appeals
and affirmed in toto the RTC’s decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:

Whether or not psychological incapacity on the part of Reynaldo has been established.

HELD:

The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid.

Psychological incapacity is not merely showing irreconcilable differences and conflicting

personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet
the essential marital responsibilities and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldo’s
action at the same time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise
grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she
and her husband cannot get along with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem
neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr.
Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered
as psychological incapacity