Tan-Andal v. Andal (2021)

CASE DETAILS
Case Title	Tan-Andal v. Andal
Citation	G.R. No. 196359, 11 May 2021
Penned by	Leonen, J.

1. Background

• Mario Victor M. Andal (Mario) and Rosanna L. Tan (Rosanna) married on December 16, 1995 at the Saints Peter and Paul Parish in Poblacion, Makati City. On July 27, 1996, Rosanna gave birth to Ma. Samantha, the only child of the parties. The family lived in a duplex in Parañaque City, with Rosanna’s parents living in the other half of the duplex.

• After four years of marriage, Mario and Rosanna separated in 2000. Rosanna has since kept the sole custody of Ma. Samantha.

• On December 18, 2001, Mario filed a Petition for custody of Ma. Samantha before the Regional Trial Court. Mario argued that he and his wife had equal rights to the custody of Ma. Samantha, thus 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, claiming that Mario was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations to her.

• According to Rosanna, she first met Mario in 1975 through the Legion of Mary at the Saints Peter and Paul Parish in Makati. They wrote each other letters until 1978, when they lost contact with each other.

• The parties reconnected in 1995 when Mario sought out Rosanna through their childhood friends. When they finally met again, Mario was in the Philippines for a two-month vacation from his work in Italy. He then persisted in asking out Rosanna for a date. As Mario was set to leave in June 1995, Rosanna agreed to have dinner with him.

• Mario then courted Rosanna, declaring that he had been in love with her for the past 20 years. Rosanna eventually fell in love with Mario and agreed to be his girlfriend.

• Mario did not leave for Italy in June, giving him more time to spend with Rosanna. On June 17, 1995, Mario proposed and Rosanna agreed to marry him in December that year.

• While they were together, Rosanna noticed that there were times when Mario “would be unaccounted for a whole night or an entire day[.]” When asked where he went, Mario would allegedly say that he was working.

• Mario also kept postponing his trip back to Italy. When asked why, Mario would either say that he was with friends or that he was “preparing for [his and Rosanna’s] future.” Since Mario was allegedly affectionate whenever they were together, Rosanna believed him.

Rosanna’s Version

• According to Rosanna, Mario once told her of a plan to blow up a ship to get back at a Taiwanese national who had cheated on his friend in a business deal. Rosanna first thought that Mario had been joking, but when Mario appeared serious about his plan, she said that she did not want to get involved in any of his “shady deals.”

• In July 1995, Mario finally left for Italy, promising Rosanna that he would be back by November for their December wedding. However, Mario was back by September, barely two months after he had left. It turned out that Mario had quit his job.

• After Mario’s return, Rosanna noticed that Mario always went out at night and would come back home at dawn, either alone or with his friends. He also had difficulty in managing his finances, with his siblings allegedly calling Rosanna and telling her that their brother was financially incapable of supporting a family. However, Rosanna was already deeply in love with Mario, so she told his sisters that she accepted Mario for who he was.

• Nevertheless, there were times when Mario would allegedly be extremely irritable and moody, causing Rosanna to have second thoughts about marrying him. However, by November 1995, Rosanna was already pregnant with their child. When Rosanna told Mario about it, he became more eager to marry her. He even gave Rosanna US$1,000.00, the only money he had, before their wedding.

• Instead of spending the US$1,000.00 for their wedding, Rosanna returned the money to Mario and encouraged him to open a current account for his personal expenses. Mario accepted the money back. The parties eventually married on December 16, 1995.

• Since Mario had no work, Rosanna taught him to run Design and Construction Matrix, the construction firm she had set up before she married Mario. She also introduced Mario to firm clients and brought him with her to client meetings.

• Mario, however, continued with his “emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, irritability, and psychological imbalance.” He would leave their house for several days without informing Rosanna of his whereabouts. Once he returned home, he would refuse to go out and would sleep for days. Mario was also “hyper-active” late at night.

• Rosanna confronted Mario about his behavior. To Rosanna’s shock, Mario admitted that he was using marijuana, although he claimed that he was not addicted and that he could stop anytime. He then promised to stop using it.

• Not keeping his promise, Mario continued with his drug use.

• The day after Rosanna gave birth to Ma. Samantha, Mario allegedly did not assist Rosanna. He left her in the hospital, knowing that she could not move until the effects of the spinal anesthesia had worn off. He only returned to the hospital later that evening to sleep.

• When Rosanna and Ma. Samantha were discharged from the hospital, Mario showed symptoms of paranoia. He thought everyone was out to attack him and, at times, would hide Ma. Samantha from those he thought were out to hurt them.

• Mario would also take large cash advances from Design and Construction Matrix every week. Rosanna only learned of Mario’s numerous cash advances when an accounting personnel informed her that the firm could no longer pay the construction workers’ salaries.

• Rosanna eventually got tired of Mario. She left him, brought Ma. Samantha with her, and stayed in an inn. She called up Mario to tell him of her and Ma. Samantha’s whereabouts. Mario followed them to the inn and pleaded Rosanna to give him another chance. After Mario’s pleas, Rosanna returned home with Ma. Samantha.

• Later, an employee at the firm handed Rosanna a packet of shabu that the employee allegedly found among Mario’s office belongings. When she checked, Rosanna herself found packets of shabu among Mario’s possessions.

• When Rosanna again confronted Mario about his drug use, he explained that it was the only way he could normally function due to the heavy pressures of work at the firm.

• In October 1998, Ma. Samantha had dengue fever and had to be confined at the hospital. Mario was not home and could not be reached. He arrived at the hospital only later that evening. He would then run around the different floors of the hospital, checking the medications prescribed to other dengue fever patients. He would also prevent the nurses from administering the prescribed medications to Ma. Samantha. When Ma. Samantha vomited, Mario, who was just sleeping by his daughter’s side, would not clean her up. He would instead ignore the ill child, turn to the other side, and continue sleeping.

• Having had enough of Mario, Rosanna drove him out of the house. After several days, Mario returned home and pleaded Rosanna for another chance. Rosanna accepted Mario back, but kept a close eye on him.

• Later in November, Mario allegedly asked one of their helpers to prepare some clothes, feeding bottles, and milk for Ma. Samantha. Ma. Samantha’s nanny noticed the helper fixing the bag, so she asked Rosanna where they would take the child. Rosanna, who was then working in their home office, rushed to Mario and asked him where he was bringing Ma. Samantha. Mario replied that he would only bring the child to Manila Memorial Park.

• Rosanna prohibited Mario from bringing Ma. Samantha out. She then called up Mario’s siblings for help. Mario got furious, threatened everyone in the house, and left without returning home.

• After he had left, Mario made purchases using his supplementary credit card. Rosanna discovered that Mario used up the P10,000.00 credit limit of his Citibank Mastercard and the P8,000.00 credit limit of his Bank of the Philippine Islands card. Mario also purchased an P11,000.00 necklace at the Landmark Department Store in Makati.

• Several days after he had left home, Mario tried to return, but Rosanna turned him away. Mario banged the door, shouting, “Buksan niyo ito kundi sisirain ko ito!” Fearing Mario, Rosanna called her parents and beeped Mario’s sisters for help. When Rosanna’s parents and Mario’s sisters arrived, however, Mario had already left.

• Later that day, Mario was found loitering near the house. With him were some travel documents, cash, and a checklist of European countries with the respective visa requirements for entry of a child for each country.

• After the door-banging incident, Mario’s siblings brought him to the Medical City for detoxification. On November 29, 1998, Mario was committed for treatment at the Medical City for 14 days. After conducting tests on Mario, the doctors found him positive for drug use. Mario’s siblings were then advised to commit him to a drug rehabilitation center for treatment. However, defying the doctor’s orders, they had him discharged from the hospital without bringing him to a drug rehabilitation facility.

• Rosanna eventually closed Design and Construction Matrix due to financial losses. Mario’s access to the company funds for his drug use allegedly used up the funds. To sustain her and her family’s needs, Rosanna searched for a job and eventually worked as an executive assistant at the Government Service Insurance System Financial Center.

• Rosanna decided to have a duplex built on a lot in Parañaque City that her aunt, Rita M. Tan, had donated on August 25, 1998. Rosanna, Mario, and Ma. Samantha would live in one apartment, and Rosanna’s parents would live in the other apartment.

• To save rent on the Makati apartment where they used to live, Mario, Rosanna, and Ma. Samantha moved into the unfinished Parañaque duplex. At first, Mario hesitated to move in, but he eventually agreed and asked that a four-square meter room at the back of the duplex be constructed. The small room would allegedly be Ma. Samantha’s playroom. Rosanna opposed Mario as the room would be too small to be a playroom, but Mario insisted on its construction.

• The four-square meter room was eventually constructed, and Mario had an air conditioning unit installed inside. He also brought in a television set, a computer table, and some personal belongings into the room. He would then spend days in the room alone and, at times, would even bring Ma. Samantha with him. He even tinkered with the electrical wires of the duplex.

• In July 1999, an electrician working on the wires of the house opened the door to the small room. He found Mario and Ma. Samantha inside, with the room filled with smoke that did not quite smell of cigarettes. The electrician informed Rosanna of what he saw, and Rosanna knew that Mario relapsed into his drug use.

• Rosanna confronted Mario and pleaded with him to get treated. However, Mario got furious and Ma. Samantha, who saw her parents fighting, started crying. To protect Ma. Samantha, Rosanna brought the child to her parents on the other side of the duplex.

• Mario followed them to his parents-in-laws’ house, forcing himself in to get Ma. Samantha. Rosanna had to call for police assistance to pacify Mario.

• Mario eventually calmed down when the police arrived. The police then searched Mario, finding packets of shabu in his person. They were about to bring Mario to the police station for detention when Rosanna pleaded with them not to take Mario. The police agreed, but they released Mario to his sister, Ma. Socorro.

• The next day, Rosanna tried to call Ma. Socorro to ask about Mario, but her calls were unanswered. Rosanna later learned that Mario had escaped from Ma. Socorro’s house earlier that morning.

• It was after these incidents that Rosanna petitioned the Regional Trial Court to voluntarily commit Mario for drug rehabilitation at the National Bureau of Investigation Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, and, eventually, at the Seagulls Flight Foundation (Seagulls).

• On February 14, 2000, Mario escaped from Seagulls, returning home and pleading with Rosanna to take him in again. Rosanna took her husband in, but Mario would again relapse into his drug use. He was also jobless and could not support his family.

• In June 2000, Ma. Samantha had to be rushed to the hospital for frequent vomiting. Mario, who was at home, did nothing, and Rosanna had to absent herself from work to rush the child to the hospital. Rosanna, who had no money with her that time, had to borrow money from Ma. Samantha’s nanny. Rosanna’s parents and siblings also shared in the child’s hospital bills.

• In August 2000, Ma. Samantha again had severe upper respiratory tract infection and frequent vomiting. When her nanny was about to give her medicine, Mario prevented the nanny from doing so, saying that mangoes would cure Ma. Samantha.

• Two days later, Mario insisted on bringing Ma. Samantha to Makati Medical Center. Rosanna suggested that they instead bring Ma. Samantha together the next day, which was a Saturday. Mario suddenly yelled out, “Magnanakaw!” Rosanna, already exasperated, drove Mario out of the house. Mario, however, dashed to the second floor, still yelling, “Magnanakaw! Magnanakaw!”

• Police officers later arrived at their home, having been called by Rosanna and Mario’s neighbors who had heard the screams coming from their house. Rosanna explained that it was her husband who was yelling and that he was a drug dependent who failed to complete his rehabilitation program. The police then brought Mario to the police station for questioning.

• Ma. Samantha saw her father screaming and the police taking him with them. The child cried and had to be brought to her grandparents’ house to be pacified.

• Already at a loss with what to do, Rosanna phoned the director of Seagulls, who recommended that Mario be recommitted to the rehabilitation center to complete his rehabilitation program.

• Thus, Rosanna informed the trial court of Mario’s relapse, causing the trial court to order Mario’s recommitment to Seagulls. Mario remained confined there until December 24, 2000, when the rehabilitation center released Mario without completing his rehabilitation program.

• Rosanna wrote the trial court as to Mario’s premature release from the rehabilitation center. Since Mario’s release on December 24, 2000, Rosanna and Mario had separated and had not lived together. Mario also failed to give support to Rosanna and Ma. Samantha.

• These events, according to Rosanna, showed Mario’s psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations to her. Rosanna contended that Mario’s drug use was the manifestation of a grave personality disorder “deeply rooted within [Mario’s] adaptive system.” She thus prayed that the trial court nullify their marriage and that she be declared the sole and absolute owner of the parcel of land donated to her by her aunt as well as the duplex built on it.

• To prove Mario’s psychological incapacity, Rosanna presented Dr. Valentina Del Fonso Garcia (Dr. Garcia), a physician-psychiatrist, as expert witness.

• In her Judicial Affidavit, Dr. Garcia declared that she interviewed Rosanna and gathered data on Rosanna’s family, educational, and employment history. She likewise conducted mental status examinations on Rosanna.

• For data on Mario’s social, sexual, and marital history, Dr. Garcia interviewed Rosanna, Ma. Samantha, and Jocelyn Genevieve L. Tan (Jocelyn Genevieve), Rosanna’s sister.

• After evaluating the data, Dr. Garcia found Rosanna “psychologically capacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations.” According to Dr. Garcia, Rosanna “has adequate social, interpersonal and occupational functioning.”

As for Mario, Dr. Garcia diagnosed him with narcissistic antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse disorder with psychotic features…

• Mario’s narcissistic antisocial personality disorder, which Dr. Garcia found to be grave, with juridical antecedence, and incurable, allegedly rendered Mario psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations to Rosanna. Dr. Garcia testified that Mario’s personality disorder was grave and “deeply rooted” in his character. Dr. Garcia added that persons suffering from personality disorders are “impermeable to any form of psychiatric therapeutic modality” because of “the presence of denial and cognizance on the basic pathology of the person [suffering from the disorder].”

• As to the juridical antecedence of Mario’s personality disorder, Dr. Garcia said that Mario “does not have enough ego strength to effectively self-regulate and face the marital task and relational stressors” and “there were substrates in [Mario’s] development which made him feel inadequate and bitter.” Mario allegedly “[needed] to have power over others to save face.”  Dr. Garcia thus recommended that the trial court void Mario and Rosanna’s marriage due to Mario’s psychological incapacity.

• On cross-examination, Dr. Garcia admitted that the data she gathered all came from Rosanna, Ma. Samantha, and Jocelyn Genevieve. She likewise admitted diagnosing Mario without interviewing him, because, despite several invitations from Dr. Garcia, Mario did not appear for an interview.

Mario’s Version

• Countering Rosanna, Mario contended that it was she who was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations.

• Mario alleged that he had worked in Switzerland, Germany, and Italy before returning to the Philippines in April 1995. In May 1995, he was issued a Canadian visa set to expire in September that year.

• While on vacation in the Philippines, he met his childhood friend, Rosanna, whom he had not seen in 17 years. They then frequently went out, dining and drinking in bars, and would go to Rosanna’s office afterward to “spend the night and share intimate moments[.]”

• In August 1995, Mario went back to Italy to resign from his job as he had already decided to work in Canada.

• When Mario returned to the Philippines a month later, Rosanna told him that she was pregnant and was planning to abort their child. Mario believed her, as Rosanna allegedly had an abortion in 1991. To prevent Rosanna from undergoing abortion, he proposed to her. They were married on December 16, 1995.

• The spouses then loaned P500,000.00 from the Elena P. Tan Foundation to increase the capital of Design and Construction Matrix, a one­-year-old construction firm under Rosanna’s name. Part of the loaned amount was used as down payment for a Mitsubishi FB L300 van.

• By January 1996, the spouses were already frequently fighting. According to Mario, Rosanna would box and kick him whenever they argued. To avoid any untoward incident, Mario would leave the house to keep his cool.

• In 1997, 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.

• Opposing Rosanna’s claim, Mario said that he worked to support the family. He worked as the operations manager of Design and Construction Matrix, and his duties included hiring and supervising firm employees, and procuring construction materials, tools, and equipment. Because of his hard work at the firm, he and Rosanna were able to pay their P500,000.00 loan and save money for the construction of their conjugal home.

• Mario claimed that he always went home and never slept out, except that one time in December 1998, when he and Rosanna had a big fight. Mario maintained that he was a good father to Ma. Samantha such that, when the child was confined in the hospital for dengue fever, he took care of her. One time, when the nurse on duty failed to replace Ma. Samantha’s empty dextrose bottle, Mario voluntarily asked the nurse to replace it with a new one. He and Ma. Samantha would also spend quality time together, going to malls and visiting relatives.

• Sometime in 1998, Mario, Rosanna, and Rosanna’s parents jointly loaned P2,500,000.00 from 1he Elena P. Tan Foundation. They deposited the amount in Metrobank-Legaspi Branch in Makati under the name of Rosanna and her father, Rodolfo M. Tan. The loaned amount would serve as funds for the construction of the duplex house in Parañaque.

• In December 1998, Mario and Rosanna fought again and this time, Rosanna drove Mario out of the house. Since he had no cash with him, Mario used up the credit limits of his credit cards totaling P40,000.00. When he returned home, Mario allegedly returned the P40,000.00 to Rosanna.

• By 1999, when the duplex was semi-finished, Mario, Rosanna, and Ma. Samantha moved in. Since construction was still ongoing, Mario insisted that a four-square meter room be constructed to protect Ma. Samantha from construction dust and debris.

• 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 in Seagulls. When he returned home, however, Rosanna remained violent and would always drive Mario out of the house.

• Between him and Rosanna, Mario argued that it was his wife who was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations to him. Rosanna insisted on living with her parents despite having her own family, resulting in her parents constantly intruding into their marital life.

• As to the parcel of land allegedly donated by Rita M. Tan, Mario claimed that the donation was a “manipulative device” to make it appear that Rosanna exclusively owned the lot.

2. SC Decision/Resolution

• [Marriage is void ab initio.]

Part I – Revisiting the Molina Guidelines

• It was in Molina where this Court laid down the guidelines for interpreting and applying Article 36. In formulating the guidelines, this Court invited two amici curiae: Rev. Oscar V. Cruz, Vicar Judicial or Presiding Judge of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Philippine Catholic Church; and Justice Ricardo C. Puno, a member of the Family Code Revision Committee. The Molina guidelines are as follows:

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it “as the foundation of the nation.” It decrees marriage as legally “inviolable,” thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be “protected” by the state.

The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.

(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. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

(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. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to 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. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

(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. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:

The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature.

Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on evidence — what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.

Molina Guideline No. 1

• The first Molina guideline reiterates the fundamental rule in evidence that one who asserts a claim must prove it Specifically, in psychological incapacity cases, it is the plaintiff-spouse who proves the existence of psychological incapacity.

Molina, however, is silent on what quantum of proof is required in nullity cases. While there is opinion that a nullity case under Article 36 is like any civil case that requires preponderance of evidence,[205] we now hold that the plaintiff-spouse must prove his or her case with clear and convincing evidence. This is a quantum of proof that requires more than preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Molina Guideline No. 2

• [T]his Court now categorically abandons the second Molina guideline. 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 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. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations.

Molina Guideline No. 3

Difficult to prove as it may be, a party to a nullity case is still required to prove juridical antecedence because it is an explicit requirement of the law. Article 36 is clear 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.” This distinguishes psychological incapacity from divorce. Divorce severs a marital tie for causes, psychological or otherwise, that may have developed after the marriage celebration.

• According to Dean Estrada-Claudio, “it is an accepted principle of all major and recognized theoretical schools within psychology that a person’s behavior is determined by the interaction of certain genetic predispositions and by his or her environment, working in iterative loops of influence.” From this, proof of juridically antecedent psychological incapacity may consist of testimonies describing the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to a particular behavior. For instance, violence against one’s spouse and children can be a manifestation of juridically antecedent psychological incapacity when it is shown that the violent spouse grew up with domestic violence or had a history of abusive romantic relationships before the marriage.

• The same can be said for child abuse. Trauma research shows that our past, if not properly healed, heavily affects our present. As such, evidence of the juridically antecedent psychological incapacity may consist of testimony on the spouse’s past experiences that may have led him or her to become a child abuser.

Molina Guideline No. 4

• Furthermore, not being an illness in a medical sense, psychological incapacity is not something to be cured. And even if it were a mental disorder, it cannot be described in terms of being curable or incurable. Dean Estrada-Claudio explained that true mental disorders follow a probable course or outcome, called “prognosis,” that can either be self-limited or remain “stable across time and consistent in situations.” If self-limited, the disorder is, in layperson’s terms, “curable.” If it has poor long-term prognosis, the disorder is said to be “incurable.”

• That psychological incapacity is “incurable,” but in a legal sense, is evident in the deliberations of the Code Committee. This was explained by Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa, when he said that “‘incurable’ has a different meaning in law and medicine.”

• Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, in his concurring opinion, added that characterizing psychological incapacity as “incurable” is antithetical, because the law does not prohibit a person whose former marriage had been nullified under Article 36 to remarry. If psychological incapacity were truly incurable, then remarriage should not be allowed as it would only result in another void marriage.

• Reading together the deliberations of the Code Committee and our rulings in Santos and Molina, we hold that the psychological incapacity contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code is incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; hence, the third Molina guideline is amended accordingly. 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. “[A]n undeniable pattern of such persisting failure [to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse] must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.”

Molina Guideline No. 5

• With respect to gravity, the requirement is retained, not in the sense that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be 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.” In other words, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause.

Molina Guideline No. 6

• Molina provides that the essential marital obligations are “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.”

• It is true that marriage is a contract primarily between the spouses; but its cause remains to be the establishment of not just conjugal but also family life. The Constitution treats marriage as the foundation of the family.[246] Furthermore, Article 70 of the Family Code provides that the spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. As such, once the parties decide and do have children, their obligations to their children become part of their obligations to each other as spouses.

• Both under canon and secular law, bonum prolis is as essential as bonum fidei. This only shows that the spouses’ obligations to their children, once children are conceived, is as much a part of the spouses’ obligations to each other. Failure to perform these obligations to their children may be a ground to nullify a spouse’s marriage.

• But not all kinds of failure to meet their obligations to their children will nullify the vinculum between the spouses. In each case, it must be clearly shown that it is of such grievous nature that it reflects on the capacity of one of the spouses for marriage. The easy cases are when one of the spouses sexually abuses one of their children; or, when unknown to the other spouse, a child is subjected to domestic violence; or when due to the spouse’s refusal to go through counseling or rehabilitation, his or her substance abuse puts a child through a situation of neglect or outright danger. As in all cases, the context of the whole case, shown by clear and convincing evidence, should be taken into consideration.

Molina Guideline No. 7

• [W]hile Article 36 of the Family Code is similarly worded to the third paragraph of Canon 1095 [of the New Code of Canon Law], canonical decisions based on the second paragraph should likewise have a persuasive effect in secular decisions on psychological incapacity, if we are to avoid anomalous situations where canonically void marriages remain valid under civil law.

• The above discussions notwithstanding, 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.

• To summarize, 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.

Part II – Psychological Incapacity, Proven

• Considering the foregoing, this Court finds Mario psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations.

• Rosanna discharged the burden of proof required to nullify her marriage to Mario. Clear and convincing evidence of Mario’s psychological incapacity consisted mainly of testimony on Mario’s personality structure and how it was formed primarily through his childhood and adult experiences, well before he married Rosanna. In addition to Rosanna’s testimony, Dr. Garcia recounted how Mario developed traits exhibiting chronic irresponsibility, impulsivity and lack of genuine remorse, lack of empathy, and sense of entitlement-behaviors manifesting his inherent psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations:

In summary, there is a Partner Relational Problem (code V61.1), which is secondary to the psychopathology of Mario Victor M. Andal who gravely failed in providing his family the love, support, dignity, understanding and respect. He has the essential features of a personality disorder as per criteria set in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV).

• His psychopathology has its root causes. There were childhood and adolescent precursors which had led to the development of his psychological deficits.

• Mario, the youngest in a brood of eight was born on December 7, 1961. His sedate father, a known businessman died when Mario was 6 years old. His mother, (sic) had to take over the family business; however, she was unable to cope so they had to sell the company. She became a top performer as a sales executive. She migrated to the U.S. His maternal grandmother, who lived with Mario and his siblings, played favorites and was very obvious about it.

• His eldest brother, Alfonso the favored grandson was dominant and opinionated. Alfonso had to quit schooling due to his father’s death. Alfonso was supposed to take charge of the family business but he was heavy on alcohol intake. He possessed a temper that would lead to the physical abuse of the two youngest siblings (Mario and Alberto). Another brother was also physically aggressive like Alfonso, (sic) was unable to complete college because of his heavy alcohol intake. The intelligent, generous and the talented Socorro stood as the mother to the younger siblings. Alberto, who was unable to complete his college degree in UST, is a substance user who is jobless and irresponsible.

• The older siblings had difficulty coping with the change from a relatively prosperous life to a life of near poverty and difficulty coping with major responsibilities like running a company which they were not prepared for. Mario was their baby. His sisters were extra loving and patient with him. Mario is athletic and excels in swimming, football/soccer, and basketball. But[,] he is an introvert[,] i.e.[,] he wasn’t vocal about his innermost feelings. He was the obedient son who was made to do errands. He adores his mother and is demonstrative of his affections towards her.

• Mario, (sic) is an “electronics [whiz]” whose intelligence matches the eldest brother’s. He completed his primary and secondary education with the highest honors. But he messed up his third year in UP. He had very few friends in his college days. He hang (sic) around with a buddy who was heavy into drugs and alcohol even when he was still in high school. He could not concentrate on his job; although there were periods when he worked as a technician in a wire company in Switzerland. He was heart-broken when he returned to Manila in 1995.

• To sum up, Mario does not have enough ego strength to effectively self-regulate and face the marital the (sic) tasks and relational stressors. Indeed, there were substrates in his development which made him feel inadequate and bitter; thus[,] the need to have power over others to save face.

Mario has a narcissistic-antisocial personality disorder. He exhibits chronic irresponsibility, impulsivity and lack of genuine remorse, Jack of empathy and a sense of entitlement. In addition, he has the propensity to be emotionally constricted and evasive. Superimposed on his personality disorder is substance use disorder with psychotic features (paranoid delusions and bizarre behavior) and aggression against people in his environ[ment]. While he may have satisfactorily endeared himself to his lone child, be miserably failed to comply with his vital marital obligations. (Emphasis in the original)

• Dr. Garcia reiterated these findings in her Judicial Affidavit, with Mario’s counsel cross-examining her on her statements.

• It is true that Dr. Garcia gave the expert opinion—which, we reiterate, is no longer required but is considered here given that it was offered in evidence—without having to interview Mario. Even Dr. Garcia herself admitted during cross-examination that her psychiatric evaluation would have been more comprehensive had Mario submitted himself for evaluation. However, the Court of Appeals erred in discounting wholesale Dr. Garcia’s expert opinion because her methodology was allegedly “unscientific and unreliable.”

• Unlike ordinary witnesses who must have personal knowledge of the matters they testify on, expert witnesses do not testify in court because they have personal knowledge of the facts of the case. The credibility of expert witnesses does not inhere in their person; rather, their testimony is sought because of their special knowledge, skill, experience, or training that ordinary persons and judges do not have.

• That drug addiction is a ground for legal separation will not prevent this Court from voiding the marriage in this case. A decree of legal separation entitles spouses to live separately from each other without severing their marriage bond, but no legal conclusion is made as to whether the marriage is valid. Therefore, it is possible that the marriage is attended by psychological incapacity of one or both spouses, with the incapacity manifested in ways that can be considered as grounds for legal separation. At any rate, so long as a party can demonstrate that the drug abuse is a manifestation of psychological incapacity existing at the time of the marriage, this should be enough to render the marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

• Here, the totality of evidence presented by Rosanna clearly and convincingly proved that Mario’s drug abuse was of sufficient durability that antedates the marriage. Admittedly, part of marriage is accepting a person for who they are, including their addictions. However, in Mario’s case, his persistent failure to have himself rehabilitated, even bringing his child into a room where he did drugs, indicates a level of dysfunctionality that shows utter disregard of his obligations not only to his wife, but to his child.

• We agree with the trial court that Mario failed to render mutual help and support to his wife, failing to find gainful employment and even driving to bankruptcy the construction firm founded by Rosanna by siphoning its funds for his drug use. He failed to exercise his rights and duties as a parent to Ma. Samantha. In the words of the trial court:

… [Mario] is incapable of performing his marital obligations, particularly to observe love and respect for his wife and to render mutual help and support. [Mario] had shown utter disregard for his wife. Throughout their life together, it was [Rosanna] who mostly provided for the needs of the family. [Mario] hardly contributed to their expenses because he never bothered to look for a job. [Mario] was also using prohibited drugs. A responsible husband would not commit acts which will bring danger, dishonor or injury to [his spouse or to his family]. (Art. 72, Family Code of the Philippines). The safety and security of the family at all times is a primordial duty of the spouse.[321]

• Even assuming that Mario has since lived a drug-free life, he only did so after separating from Rosanna. This confirms Dr. Garcia’s finding that his psychological incapacity was enduring relative to his long-estranged wife and can manifest again if he is forced to stay with her.

• All told, we find that Rosanna proved with clear and convincing evidence that Mario was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations. Their marriage, therefore, is void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Part III – Property Relations

• Void marriages are no marriages. Thus, the provisions of the Family Code on property relations between husband and wife—the systems of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, and separation of property—do not apply in disposing of properties that may have been acquired during the parties’ cohabitation. Instead, the property regime of parties to a void marriage is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code, depending on whether the parties have no legal impediment to marry.

• Here, Mario and Rosanna are parties to a void marriage due to psychological incapacity. When they were married in 1995, Mario was 33 years old while Rosanna was 31. There is no showing that the marriage was incestuous or void due to public policy. They likewise lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife until they separated in 2000. Being capacitated to marry each other and having lived exclusively with each other albeit under a void marriage, Article 147 of the Family Code governs their property relations.

• Under Article 147, wages and salaries earned by the parties during their cohabitation shall be equally divided between them. This is regardless of who worked to earn the wage or salary.

• With respect to properties acquired during their cohabitation, the rules on co-ownership under the Civil Code govern. Therefore, a property acquired during the parties’ cohabitation shall be presumed to have been acquired through the parties’ joint efforts. For purposes of Article 147, “joint efforts” includes a party’s care and maintenance of the family and of the household. With this presumption, the parties are deemed to own the property in equal shares.

• However, if a piece of property was obtained through only one party’s effort, work, or industry, and there is proof that the other did not contribute through the care and maintenance of the family and of the household, the property acquired during the cohabitation shall be solely owned by the party who actually worked to acquire the property.

• In this case, there is proof that the Parañaque lot was not obtained by Mario and Rosanna’s joint efforts, work, or industry. Rita M. Tan, Rosanna’s aunt, donated the 315-square meter lot to Rosanna and her father, Rodolfo M. Tan. The Deed of Donation dated August 25, 1998 provides that Rita M. Tan donated 157.50 square meters to “Rodolfo M. Tan, married to Josefina G. Leaño” and to “Rosanna L. Tan-Andal, married to Mario Andal” each. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 139811 covering 157.50 square meters of the Parañaque lot is under the name of “Rosanna L. Tan­Andal, of legal age, Filipino, married to Mario Andal.” In Salas, Jr. v. Aguila, this Court held that “married to” only refers to the civil status of the property’s registered owner.

• Thus, Rosanna exclusively owns half of the 315-square meter Parañaque lot. Mario has no share in this property because he did not care for and maintain the family and the household.

• As for the half of the duplex house that served as the parties’ family home, there is evidence that the funds used to construct the house were obtained solely through Rosanna and her father’s efforts. In a promissory note dated July 13, 1998, Rosanna and her father jointly loaned P2,400,000.00 from the Elena P. Tan Foundation for the construction of a house on the Parañaque lot. Although Mario signed the promissory note to give “marital consent” to Rosanna, he has no proof that he participated in acquiring the funds. He cannot be deemed to have contributed jointly in acquiring the funds since he did not care for and maintain the family and the household.

• As the funds to construct the house were obtained solely through Rosanna and her father’s efforts, and Mario did not care for and maintain the household, he has no share in the duplex.

Part IV – Custody

• In resolving issues of custody of minors whose parents have separated, Article 213 of the Family Code governs.

• In Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto, this Court held that the “separation of parents” contemplated in Article 213 may either be legal separation or separation in fact. In deciding cases involving custody of a minor, the courts must consider, among others, “the previous care and devotion shown by each of the parents; their religious background, moral uprightness, home environment and time availability; [and] the [child’s] emotional and educational needs.”

• Here, Mario and Rosanna have been separated in fact since 2000. Between them, Rosanna showed greater care and devotion to Ma. Samantha. Even when they still lived together, Rosanna had been more available to her child. She raised Ma. Samantha on her own since she and Mario separated. Mario has not supported both mother and child since he separated from Rosanna, even after he had claimed that he has been living “drug-free.”

• With these considerations, the trial court did not err in awarding Ma. Samantha’s custody to Rosanna, without prejudice to Mario’s right to visit his daughter.

• Nonetheless, Rosanna’s parental authority over Ma. Samantha was already terminated in 2014 when the child reached the age of majority. Ma. Samantha is now qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life and, therefore, is at liberty to choose how to relate with her father.