Tan Vs Andal

Tan-Andal v.
Andal
G.R. No. 196359
Ponente LEONEN, J
May 11, 2021
A woman seeks the nullity of her marriage due to her husband's alleged psychological
incapacity, and the Supreme Court rules in her favor, declaring the marriage null and void
based on evidence presented by an expert witness and the existence of the husband's
incurable personality disorders.
Facts:
 Petition for nullity of marriage filed by Rosanna L. Tan-Andal against Mario Victor M.
Andal.
 Rosanna and Mario were married on December 16, 1995.
 They have one child together named Ma. Samantha.
 They separated in 2000, and Rosanna has sole custody of their child.
 Mario filed a petition for custody of Ma. Samantha.
 Rosanna filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage due to Mario's
alleged psychological incapacity.
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Rosanna's petition, voided the marriage, and
awarded sole custody of Ma. Samantha to Rosanna.
 The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC, declaring the marriage valid
and subsisting.
Issue:
 Whether the marriage between Rosanna and Mario should be declared null and void
due to Mario's alleged psychological incapacity.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rosanna and declared the marriage between
her and Mario null and void.
Ratio:
 Psychological incapacity need not be grounded on a specific psychological illness or
diagnosed by an expert.
 Ordinary witnesses who have observed the behavior of the allegedly incapacitated
spouse can testify to establish the incapacity.
 Psychological incapacity must be existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage and need not be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
 The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff-spouse, and any doubt should be resolved
in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage.
Facts:
 Rosanna L. Tan-Andal filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against
Mario Victor M. Andal.
 Rosanna and Mario were married on November 29, 1986 and had a daughter named
Ma. Samantha.
 Rosanna alleged that Mario was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital
obligations.
 Rosanna claimed that Mario was a persistent drug user, financially irresponsible, and
incapable of providing emotional and financial support to their family.
 Rosanna also stated that Mario exposed Samantha to his drug use.
 Rosanna presented Dr. Valentina Del Fonso Garcia, a physician and psychiatrist, as an
expert witness.
 Dr. Garcia testified that Mario suffered from Narcissistic Antisocial Personality
Disorder and Substance Abuse Disorder with Psychotic Features.
Issue:
 Whether Mario is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations,
warranting the declaration of nullity of their marriage.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rosanna and granted the petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage.
 The Court held that the evidence on record clearly and convincingly established that
Mario was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations.
 The Court considered the testimony of Dr. Garcia, who diagnosed Mario with
personality disorders and confirmed his incapacity to understand and comply with
his marital obligations.
 The Court also noted that Mario's disorders existed prior to the marriage and were
incurable.
Ratio:
 The Court clarified that psychological incapacity under Article 36 is a legal concept,
not a medical or clinical one.
 It must be proven to exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage and be of
such gravity as to render the afflicted spouse incapable of fulfilling the essential
marital obligations.
 The Court emphasized that the guidelines should not be treated as a rigid checklist
but as evidentiary guideposts to assist the courts in evaluating the evidence.
 The Court recognized the need for expert testimony to establish the existence and
nature of the psychological incapacity, but it should not be deemed indispensable if
the totality of evidence proves the incapacity.
 Each case should be judged on its own facts and the trial court has the duty to
carefully evaluate the evidence and determine the existence of psychological
incapacity.
Background of the Case
 The case involves a petition for the nullity of marriage and custody of a child.
 The petitioner, Rosanna L. Tan-Andal, claims that her husband, Mario Victor M.
Andal, is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations.
 The trial court granted the petition and awarded custody of their daughter to
Rosanna.
 However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.
Petitioner's Claims and Evidence
 Rosanna claims that Mario exhibited a grave personality disorder and drug addiction,
rendering him incapable of fulfilling his marital obligations.
 She presented an expert witness, Dr. Garcia, who diagnosed Mario with narcissistic
antisocial personality disorder.
Trial Court Decision and Reversal by Court of Appeals
 The trial court granted Rosanna's petition for nullity of marriage and custody of their
child.
 The Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding Dr. Garcia's evaluation
unreliable.
Issues to be Resolved
 Validity of the guidelines for declaring nullity of marriage due to psychological
incapacity.
 Identification and curability of psychological incapacity.
 Division of properties and custody of their child.
Rosanna's Arguments
 Rosanna argues that the Molina guidelines have made it difficult for parties to be
released from a broken marriage.
 She believes that psychological incapacity does not have to be grounded in a specific
psychological illness and can be proven through competent evidence.
 Rosanna also argues that Article 36 of the Family Code does not violate the
separation of Church and State.
Mario's Arguments
 Mario claims that Rosanna failed to prove his psychological incapacity and that his
past drug use is only a ground for legal separation, not nullity of marriage.
 He argues that Article 36 is not violative of the separation of Church and State and
that psychological incapacity is incurable.
Court Decision
 The court ultimately grants Rosanna's petition, finding clear and convincing evidence
of Mario's psychological incapacity.

Tan Vs Andal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan Vs Andal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan Vs Andal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan-Andal v.

You might also like