FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 236827. April 19, 2022.]

Court clarified in Tan-Andal , proof of the aspects of personality of the spouses need not be
given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have known the spouses before the latter contracted
marriage may testify on behavior that they have consistently observed from the supposedly
incapacitated spouse. From these, the judge will decide if the behaviors are indicative of a true
and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations. In this way, the intent to
limit the incapacity to "psychic causes" is fulfilled and there will be no need to label a person as
having a mental disorder just to obtain a decree of nullity.
The FACTS
Elizabeth and Jose Luis R. Alberto (Jose) met in Madrid, Spain in 1995. After joining several
group dates, the two broke up with their respective partners and became sweethearts. They lived
together in Madrid from 1996 to 1997; at that time, Jose had to return to the Philippines to look
for work. On January 14, 1998, while Elizabeth was on vacation in the Philippines, the two got
married in San Fernando, Pampanga. Two days later, Elizabeth flew back to Madrid, while Jose
was left behind because of his job.
According to Elizabeth, even before they got married, she noticed that Jose was irresponsible —
he would got drunk until he passes out; he would also smoke cigarettes and marijuana ; and he
had bouts of depression. However, she overlooked all these shortcomings and hoped that she
could
change him for the better. While Elizabeth was working in Madrid, Jose had an affair with a
certain Joyce David (Joyce). The two eventually parted ways in 2008; Jose stopped
communicating and giving support to Elizabeth and their children. Elizabeth asserted that during
their cohabitation as husband and wife, Jose fell short of his financial obligations as he was often
without a job. He would get depressed and sleep for long hours. He would rely on her to make
decisions in the household. He did not care for the children even when they were sick, and he did
not attend their school activities. He even physically hurt their eldest child to get him to obey his
orders.
Dr. Belen declared that the root cause of Jose's personality can be traced to his childhood. He
came from a wealthy and politically influential family; thus, he was pampered with material
things. But he was deprived of attention and affection as his parents were too busy. Such
personality, which
was already in existence since childhood, is grave as it impairs him to handle the demands of
interpersonal adjustment. He sees nothing wrong with himself, and thus, he remains impervious
to change and improvement.
The RTC held that the totality of evidence presented showed that Jose is psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations. It found that Jose's personality disorder is
characterized by juridical antecedence, as it existed long before he and Elizabeth got married;
permanent, as it is deeply imbedded in his personality; and grave , as it renders him
psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations.

ISSUE
Whether or not Jose was psychologically incapacitated from carring out marital obligations and
support his family and thus let the petition for declaration of nullity of Elizabeth's marriage with
Jose be granted?

HELD: The petition has merit. Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines recognizes
psychological incapacity of a spouse as a ground to void a marriage. Through the landmark case
of Tan-Andal v. Andal 33 (Tan-Andal), the Court has clarified that psychological incapacity is
neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert
opinion. In addition, the Court declared:
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.
It is the plaintiff-spouse who has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence the
existence of psychological incapacity. "Clear and convincing evidence" is more than
"preponderant" but less than "proof beyond reasonable doubt," following the presumption of
validity of marriages.
Also, the alleged psychological incapacity must be shown to beg rave, incurable , and juridically
antecedent. "Gravity" is understood to be the incapacity caused by a genuinely serious psychic
cause. It need not be a serious or dangerous illness. However, "mild characterological
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" are excluded. It is not mere
"refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will."
"Incurability" meanwhile should be viewed in its legal, and not medical, sense. Since
psychological incapacity is not medically an illness, it is not something to be cured. The
incapacity however must be 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 in the union would be the inevitable and irreparable
breakdown of the marriage. There must be an undeniable pattern of such persisting failure to be a
present, loving, faithful, respectful and supportive spouse, so as to demonstrate that there is
indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.
Finally, it must be "juridically antecedent." This means that the psychological incapacity must be
existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, even if such incapacity becomes manifest
only after its solemnization. It is an accepted principle in psychology that a person's behavior is
determined by the interaction of certain genetic predispositions and by his or her environment.
Proof of juridically antecedent psychological incapacity may therefore consist of testimonies
describing the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to
a particular behavior.

As the Court clarified in Tan-Andal , proof of the aspects of personality of the spouses need not
be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have known the spouses before the latter
contracted marriage may testify on behavior that they have consistently observed from the
supposedly incapacitated spouse. From these, the judge will decide if the behaviors are indicative
of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations. In this way, the
intent to limit the incapacity to "psychic causes" is fulfilled and there will be no need to label a
person as having a
mental disorder just to obtain a decree of nullity.
Because psychological incapacity is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically
identified, expert opinion is not required. When they are present and made available, however,
courts must give due regard to expert opinion, particularly on the parties' psychological and
mental disposition. The presentation of expert testimony to prove that a person is suffering from
an incurable mental illness, while dispensable, may be deemed as compelling evidence in
resolving the issue of psychological incapacity. In any event, each case must be judged
according to its own facts, guided by the findings of experts and researchers in psychological
disciplines, among others.
As the Court held in Zamora v. Court of Appeals, the examination of the person by a physician
in order for the former to be declared
psychologically incapacitated is not a requirement. What is important is the presence of evidence
that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition. If the totality of evidence
presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical
examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. Absence of personal examination is
not fatal so long as the totality of evidence sufficiently supports a finding of
psychological incapacity. Here, Dr. Belen tried to get in touch with Jose, but the letter she sent
him was returned unserved. She then based her report on her interviews with Elizabeth and the
couple's children, as well as on the results of the various psychological tests conducted on
Elizabeth.

Based on the totality of evidence in this case, the Court finds that Elizabeth was able to show that
Jose was psychologically incapacitated at the time he got married to her and remained to be so
thereafter. He is noncognitive of the basic marital covenants such as respect, fidelity, mutual
love, help, and support to each other. The RTC was correct in granting Elizabeth's petition to
declare her marriage with Jose null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological

Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.