Tan-Andal v.

Andal

G.R. No. 196359. May 11, 2021

Justice Leonen

Doctrine:

- Psychological incapacity although characterized by grave, juridical antecedence, and incurable,

is not a medical but a legal concept. It is a personal condition that prevents a spouse to perform
marital obligations in relation to a specific person that may exist at the time of marriage but may
have revealed through behavior subsequent to ceremonies. It need not be a mental or
personality disorder. It need not be a permanent and incurable condition. The testimony of a
psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases.The totality of evidence must show
clear and convincing evidence to cause the declaration of nullity of marriage.

Facts:

- Mario Victor M. Andal (Mario) and Rosanna L. Tan (Rosanna) married on December 16, 1995 at
the Sts. Peter and Paul Parish Church ( Makati City)

-On July 27, 1996, Rosanna gave birth to Ma. Samantha(only child)

-The family lived in a duplex with Rosanna's parents living in the other half of the duplex.

- Mario and Rosanna separated in 2000

-Rosanna kept the sole custody of Ma. Samantha.

- On December 18, 2001, Mario filed a Petition for custody of Ma. Samantha praying that he be
allowed to exercise parental authority over his daughter.

-On August 6, 2003, Rosanna filed a Petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage - Mario
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations

Petitioner's Contention:

- Mario was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations due to his drug use (his
admissions, the discovery of drugs in his possession, and his repeated relapses despite attempts
at rehabilitation), erratic behavior (disappearances, mood swings, and instances of paranoia and
aggression), and inability to provide emotional and financial support(inability to manage
finances, and his reliance on her for income and resources).

- Rosanna presented Dr. Valentina Del Fonso Garcia (Dr. Garcia), a physician-psychiatrist, as
expert witness.

>diagnosed him with narcissistic antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse disorder
with psychotic features which found to be grave, with juridical antecedence, and incurable.

Defendant's Contention:

- Mario contended that it was she who was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her
essential marital obligations.

- Rosanna allegedly became uncontrolloble. She would bang her head on tables, doors, concrete
walls, and closets, and would even inflict corporal punishment on Ma. Samantha.

- He claimed that he worked to support the family, managing their construction business and
contributing to their finances.

-Mario denied that he was ever a threat to Rosanna and Ma. Samantha. He voluntarily
committed himself for detoxification at the Medical City and completed his six-month
rehabilitation
-

Ruling of Lower Court:

- RTC voided Mario and Rosanna's marriage. It awarded the custody of Ma. Samantha to
Rosanna, with Mario having visitation rights.

-It was clearly shown from [Mario's] actuations that he never really cared about the well-being
of his family. He never commiserated with [Rosanna] during her difficult times. Despite
[Rosanna's efforts] to keep the marriage intact, [Mario] showed no interest in mending his ways.
These acts, to the mind of the Court, manifested [Mario's] total disregard of the basic tenets of
marriage.

Ruling of Court of Appeals:

-Court of Appeals declared Mario and Rosanna's marriage valid and subsisting.

-Reversing the trial court's ruling, the Court of Appeals found Dr. Garcia's psychiatric evaluation
of Mario to be "unscientific and unreliable"127 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."

Issue:

- Whether or not the marriage between Mario and Rosanna is void due to psychological
incapacity.

Ruling of Supreme Court:

- Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the
Regional Trial Court declaring the marriage void ab initio due to psychological incapacity

Ratio:

-Code committee deliberations - psychological incapacity should mean "no less than a mental
(not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants
that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage."177 It
added that "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."

- Precedent: Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina(1997)

> Molina guidelines:

1.) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. xxx

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.

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.

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.

-psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of

understanding and concomitant compliance with one's essential marital obligations due to
psychic causes. It is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence,
expert opinion is not required.

Intod v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992

Justice Campos, Jr.

Doctrine:

-Art. 4(2). CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. — Criminal Responsibility shall be incurred:

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Facts:

-On February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to
Salvador Mandaya's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and asked him to go
with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan.

-At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Petitioner et. al., all armed with
firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's house.

-Mandaya pointed Palangpangan's bedroom and there, they fired at the said room.

-It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City . No one was in the room when
the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.

Ruling of Lower Court:

- Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder.

Ruling of Court of Appeals:

- Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of RTC

Petitioner's Contention:

-Petitioner seeks from this Court a modification of the judgment by holding him liable only for
an impossible crime

Defendant's Contention:

-crime was not impossible, instead, the facts were sufficient to constitute an attempt and to
convict Intod for attempted murder

> there was intent

-The crime of murder was not consummated, not because of the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment (Art. 4(2), Revised Penal Code), but due to a cause or accident other than
petitioner's and his accused's own spontaneous desistance (Art. 3., Ibid.) Palangpangan did not
sleep at her house at that time. Had it not been for this fact, the crime is possible, not
impossible.

Issue:

-whether or not Intod should be convicted of attempted murder or an impossible crime.

Ruling of Supreme Court:

-petition is granted, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of
Attempted Murder is MODIFIED. Thereby held Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime -penalty
of arresto mayor(6months) with accessory penalties.

Ratio Decidendi:
- Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where (1) the motive, desire and
expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; (2) there is intention to perform the
physical act; (3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the consequence
resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

-The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act
penalized by itself.