Start with what Tan-Andal changed
In Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021, En Banc) the Supreme Court abandoned the old requirement that the root cause be medically identified and proved by experts:
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.
Read that as a permission, not as a plan. We located no Supreme Court decision granting nullity on lay testimony alone with no expert at all, and every located case in which a marriage was voided had one. The rule allows it; no retrieved decision shows it succeeding. So a report is still the norm, and we prepare cases on that footing. The grounds page covers the rest.
Your spouse does not have to be examined
This part is settled, and it is older than most people expect. Marcos v. Marcos (G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000) opens with it:
Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however, that the respondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a conditio sine qua non for such declaration.
Hindi mo kailangang pilitin ang asawa mo. But be careful how much weight you put on that sentence, because Brenda Marcos still lost. Having agreed that no examination was required, the Court went on:
Nevertheless, the totality of the evidence she presented does not show such incapacity.
The non-examination rule removes an obstacle. It does not win a case, and the standard remains clear and convincing evidence.
Two cases that look like your life
Zamora v. Magsalay-Zamora (G.R. No. 253993, October 23, 2023) is the closest thing in the reports to an OFW file: both spouses worked in Abu Dhabi and married there in 2006, and the case was tried in Cebu City. The psychologist interviewed the husband, his mother, his sister, the house help and two common friends, never the wife. The trial court dismissed because the report was not formally offered. The Supreme Court declared the marriage void:
A psychological assessment report is not an indispensable requirement for the declaration of nullity of marriage. What matters is that the totality of evidence presented establishes the concerned spouse's psychological condition.
Kusk v. Kusk (G.R. No. 228564, August 13, 2025) is the freshest authority, and it is the one for a spouse who has vanished. The husband left in 1995 and never came back; he was served by publication, ignored a Resolution served through the Philippine Honorary Consulate General in Copenhagen, and never took part at any stage. The psychologist interviewed only the wife, and both lower courts refused the report for that reason. The Supreme Court granted the petition:
At this juncture, it is significant to note that the psychological or medical examination of a respondent spouse is not required as a condition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, as psychological incapacity is to be determined through all the evidence presented. Nonetheless, the psychological examination of Dr. Tayag must be given probative value as an expert's opinion.
If your spouse cannot be found, read that alongside summons by publication.
The counterweight you should also read
Post-Tan-Andal petitions still fail. In Pugoy-Solidum v. Republic (G.R. No. 213954, April 20, 2022) the psychologist could not examine the husband, who never responded, and relied on the wife and her mother. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, restating the non-examination rule and adding this:
However, the petitioner bears a greater burden in showing gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. Nevertheless, each petition for nullity of marriage must be dealt with on a case-to-case basis.
The report named a disorder but carried no data on the husband's upbringing and no link between his personality structure and his failures as a spouse. That is your checklist: specific acts, the environment the spouse grew up in, and the connection between them.
One question the Court has not settled
There is a genuine tension in the case law, and you should hear it from us first. Georfo v. Republic (G.R. No. 246933, March 6, 2023) warns:
It is essential to have the psychological assessment derived from sources other than the petitioning spouse because of the obvious bias in favor of the petitioner's cause.
Kusk then granted a petition in 2025 where the assessment rested on the petitioning spouse alone, and neither decision cites the other on the point. We will not present that as resolved; a court decides it case by case. What follows is practical: we build every case on at least one corroborating witness — a sibling, a childhood friend, a former neighbour, or the spouse's own family.
Can the evaluation happen where you live?
Here we have to be plain. Four targeted searches of Philippine case law turned up no decision on an evaluation conducted by video call, by telephone, or by a clinician based outside the Philippines. It is not settled either way by any decision we found, so it is arranged case by case and discussed at the consultation, not promised on a web page. Testifying remotely and being evaluated remotely are different acts, and only the first has an issuance behind it — see the testimony page.
Who may serve as the expert
Two separate questions. On evidence, Rule 130, Section 49 of the Rules of Court, quoted in Kusk, is generous:
SECTION 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
Nothing we located requires a psychiatrist; Kusk treated a clinical psychologist as qualified. On licensure, Republic Act No. 10029 reserves psychological assessment to psychologists registered with the Professional Regulation Commission, with a narrow permit route for foreign-licensed specialists. No decision applying that Act to an Article 36 report was found, so we will not tell you a foreign report gets thrown out. We instruct a PRC-registered psychologist because it removes an argument the State could otherwise raise.
Consultations are ₱3,500, by video call — see how we work with clients outside the Philippines and what can and cannot be done remotely. Book a consultation and we will map your witnesses first.
Frequently asked
My spouse refuses to see a psychologist. Is my case over?
No. Marcos v. Marcos (G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000) held that there is no requirement that the respondent be examined by a physician or a psychologist, and the Supreme Court repeated the point in Zamora v. Magsalay-Zamora (2023) and in Kusk v. Kusk (2025). A refusal to cooperate is not a defence to your petition. What it changes is the work, because the record then has to be built from people who knew you both and from documents.
Can the evaluation be done online, or by a clinician in the country where I work?
Our research found no Philippine decision either allowing or disallowing it. That silence cuts both ways, so we will not tell you it is settled in your favour. It is arranged case by case, and it is one of the first things we scope at the consultation, along with when you would need to be in the Philippines.
Do I need a psychiatrist, or is a psychologist enough?
Nothing located in our research requires a psychiatrist. Rule 130, Section 49 of the Rules of Court admits the opinion of a witness with special knowledge, skill, experience or training, and Kusk v. Kusk (2025) treated a clinical psychologist as qualified. We instruct a psychologist registered with the Professional Regulation Commission, because Republic Act No. 10029 makes psychological assessment a regulated professional service and a registered expert removes an argument the State could otherwise raise.
If the report is not required, is it still worth getting?
In the ordinary case, yes. Kusk v. Kusk (2025) held that a qualified expert's examination must be given probative value as an expert's opinion, and every case we located in which a marriage was voided had an expert. But a report that names a disorder without setting out specific acts, the spouse's upbringing, and the link between the two will not carry a petition. That is why Pugoy-Solidum v. Republic (2022) failed even after Tan-Andal.