 |
| Photo credit belongs to www.online-therapy.com |
FACTS:
Rosanna and Mario were married in 1995. Out of their marriage, Maria Samantha was born. However, the couple separated in 2000 due to Mario's actions and drug dependence. As claimed by Rosanna, Mario's drug addiction was manifested even before the celebration of their marriage and he even admitted to her that he is using drugs. Despite such, Rosanna still married Mario as the latter assured to her that he is not addicted and can stop using drugs anytime. However, his promise failed. Rosanna even voluntarily committed Mario to a Rehabilitation Center, but the latter did not finish his treatment. Rosanna gave Mario multiple chances to change, but the latter always relapse into using drugs. He was jobless and could not support his family. He can't even take care of Maria Samantha during those events when the child has sicknesses.
Rosanna then filed a petition to nullify their marriage on grounds of Psychological Incapacity. She claimed that Mario is incapable of complying with his marital obligations to her. She contended that Mario's drug use is a manifestation of a grave personality disorder deeply rooted within his adaptive system.
To prove Mario's Psychological Incapacity, Rosanna presented Dr. Garcia, a physician-psychiatrist as an expert witness.
Dr. Garcia conducted interviews and examinations which as a result diagnosed Mario to have a narcissistic antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Garcia testified that Mario's disorder was found to be grave, with juridical antecedence and incurable.
However, Dr. Garcia admitted on cross-examination that the data she gathered all came from Rosanna, Maria Samantha, and Jocelyn (Rosanna's sister). Dr. Garcia admitted that she diagnosed Mario without interviewing him, because, despite several invitations from her, Mario did not appear for an interview.The Trial Court voided Rosanna and Mario's marriage, but, this decision was reversed in the Court of Appeals and declared their marriage valid and subsisting. The Court of Appeals found Dr. Garcia's psychiatric evaluation of Mario to be "unscientific and unreliable" because she diagnosed him without interviewing him and Dr. Garcia used only second-hand information fed to her only by Rosanna's side.
ISSUE:
Whether the marriage between Rosanna and Mario is void due to Psychological Incapacity.
RULING:
Yes. The court in this case settled some points and revisited the doctrines and rulings laid down in cases of Molina and Santos.
Some Points and issues as discussed and settled by the Supreme Court as they relate to this case are the following:
Evidence: Quantum of Proof
Molina guidelines provided the fundamental rule in evidence that one who asserts a claim must prove it. In Psychological Incapacity cases, the plaintiff-spouse is the one who must prove the existence of that ground. However, in Molina case, the required quantum of proof was not declared.
The Court held to settle this issue, that the plaintiff-spouse must prove his or her case with clear and convincing evidence. This is a proof that requires more than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Although this case is a civil one that normally requires preponderance of evidence, the jurisdiction of the court follows the presumption of validity of marriage. As with any presumption such as the presumption of regularity in the issuance of public documents or of good faith, it can only be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence.
The Second Molina guideline (The Root Cause of Psychological Incapacity)
The court abandons this second guideline. Apparently, this guideline required the presentation of evidence of the root cause of the psychological incapacity which in particular must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts. This actually equates psychological incapacity to a "mental incapacity" and "personality disorder" which, however, went against the intent behind Article 36.
Mental is not the same as Pyschological. Mentally is not present in the wording of Art. 36. It is with the intention not to use the term because it would give the wrong impression of psychological incapacity being a vice of consent, which on the other hand negates the Code Committee's intention to use the ground of psychological incapacity as an acceptable alternative to divorce.
Psychological Incapacity is also not a personality disorder as it cannot be found in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the authoritative listing of various mental, including personality disorders recognized by the scientific community.
Hence, the court abandons the second Molina guideline and held that 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 undermine the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more importantly, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.
Expert opinions are no longer required to prove the personality structure of the supposed psychologically incapacitated spouse. Testimony of ordinary witnesses who have been present in the lives of the spouses before the celebration of their marriage and have consistently observed the supposed incapacitated spouse's personality structure is sufficient.
Juridical Antecedence, Incurability and Gravity
Juridical Antecedence is an explicit requirement under Art. 36. The law is clear when it requires that psychological incapacity must be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
Incurability as a requirement of Psychological Incapacity shall not be interpreted to mean incurability in a medical sense because it is not an illness to be cured. It must be interpreted in a legal sense. 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. Thus, the third Molina doctrine is amended accordingly by the Court.
Gravity as a requirement is retained by the Court, not in the sense that psychological incapacity must be shown to be a serious or dangerous illness, but that "mild characters logical peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" are excluded. The psychological incapacity cannot be mere "refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will."
To relate the foregoing bases to this case, the court held that Rosanna indeed proves the psychological incapacity of Mario to comply with his essential marital obligations through clear and convincing evidence. The evidence consists mainly of testimony on Mario's personality structure and how it is formed primarily through childhood and adult experiences before he married Rosanna. In addition to Rosanna's testimony, the Court also considered the expert opinion of Dr. Garcia for it was already admitted as evidence.
If you want to read the full case, click this link: Supreme Court Full-text case of Rosanna L. Tan-Andal vs. Mario Victor M. Andal.
You may also view the previous guidelines set in the case of Molina at this link:
Republic vs. Molina case digest
Comments
Post a Comment