Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021) represents the most significant recalibration of Article 36 jurisprudence since Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina was handed down in 1997. Writing for the Court, Justice Leonen dismantled the rigid framework that Molina had imposed over more than two decades — a framework that, by the Court's own admission, had turned into a "strait-jacket" forcing cases of genuine marital dysfunction into an increasingly narrow clinical mold. The ruling is humane in intent and long overdue in execution. But practitioners who read it as a license to dispense with psychological evidence entirely do so at their client's peril.
What the Court Actually Held
The core doctrinal shifts in Tan-Andal are four.
First, the Court abandoned the requirement that psychological incapacity be medically or clinically identified as a personality disorder under the second Molina guideline. Psychological incapacity, the Court clarified, is neither a mental illness nor a diagnosable condition under the DSM-V — it is a legal concept referring to a durable aspect of a person's personality structure that renders them genuinely incapable of understanding and complying with the essential obligations of marriage.
Second, the Court raised the quantum of proof from preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence, consistent with the constitutional presumption in favor of the validity of marriages.
Third, the concept of incurability was recast in legal rather than medical terms — the incapacity need not be clinically permanent, but must be shown to be enduring and persistent relative to the specific marital relationship.
Fourth, expert opinion was declared no longer mandatory; ordinary witnesses with personal knowledge of the respondent's behavior and personality, observed over time and predating the marriage, may now be sufficient to establish psychological incapacity.
These are meaningful reforms. They correct the injustice of requiring petitioners to pathologize their spouses — to have them formally diagnosed with a clinical disorder — as a precondition to obtaining relief from a marriage that was, from the beginning, incapable of producing its essential effects.
Why the Psychologist Remains Indispensable in Practice
The abolition of the mandatory expert opinion requirement, however, must be understood for what it is: a removal of a strict legal prerequisite, not an endorsement of litigating these cases without psychological support. There are compelling practical and strategic reasons why the engagement of a psychologist or psychiatrist remains the prudent course in virtually every Article 36 petition.
First, the standard of proof is now higher, not lower. The shift to clear and convincing evidence — a quantum more demanding than preponderance — means that petitioners must build a stronger evidentiary record, not a thinner one. While testimonial evidence alone is now legally sufficient, the practical reality is that ordinary witnesses testify about events and behaviors they personally observed. They are not equipped to draw the connective tissue between observed conduct and the legal elements of psychological incapacity: gravity, juridical antecedence, and the enduring nature of the personality structure. A psychologist provides exactly this analytical bridge. Without it, the petitioner is left hoping that the trial judge will independently make inferences that a trained clinician would ordinarily supply.
Second, juridical antecedence remains a hard legal requirement. The Court was explicit that Article 36 requires the incapacity to have existed at or before the time of the marriage's celebration. Proving this without expert testimony is considerably more difficult than it appears. Ordinary witnesses can testify that the respondent behaved erratically during courtship or that certain behavioral patterns preceded the marriage. But establishing that those behaviors were rooted in a durable personality structure — formed through developmental history, early environment, or ingrained character traits that antedated the relationship — is a task that calls for professional assessment. The Court itself acknowledged this in Tan-Andal, noting that proof of juridical antecedence may consist of testimony on the spouse's past experiences and the environment in which they were formed. A psychologist is in the best position to organize, interpret, and present that developmental narrative in a legally coherent form.
Third, gravity must be distinguished from ordinary marital difficulty. The Court retained the requirement that the incapacity be caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause, expressly excluding mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, and occasional emotional outbursts. This is a distinction that is far easier to make with expert support than without it. A psychologist can articulate why a particular pattern of behavior crosses the threshold from marital friction into a fundamental incapacity to assume essential obligations. Without that framework, a petitioner risks presenting a factual narrative that the court finds sympathetic but legally insufficient — a story of a failed marriage rather than a void one.
Fourth, the totality of evidence doctrine rewards comprehensive preparation. The Court in Tan-Andal — echoing Marcos v. Marcos — reaffirmed that what governs is the totality of the evidence. A psychological evaluation, even one based on collateral information rather than a direct interview of the respondent, contributes meaningfully to that totality. The Court itself gave weight to Dr. Garcia's expert opinion in Tan-Andal, notwithstanding the fact that Mario Andal was never personally interviewed. The evaluation was admitted and credited not because it was required, but because it was persuasive. Removing it from the picture does not strengthen a case — it diminishes it.
Fifth, public prosecutors and the OSG will continue to resist petitions lacking professional support. The State, through the public prosecutor and the Office of the Solicitor General, participates in every Article 36 proceeding under Article 48 of the Family Code to guard against collusion and fabrication. These institutional participants have consistently challenged petitions they regard as insufficiently supported. A petition backed by lay testimony alone, without any professional assessment of the respondent's personality structure, presents a far more vulnerable target than one that combines witness testimony with a rigorous psychological evaluation. The liberalization of the legal standard in Tan-Andal does not neutralize adversarial scrutiny — it merely changes the vocabulary in which that scrutiny is expressed.
A Practical Synthesis
Tan-Andal is best read not as a ruling that diminishes the role of the psychologist, but as one that repositions it. The psychologist is no longer a gatekeeper whose diagnosis determines whether a petition can survive — that rigid role, with its attendant cruelties, has been properly discarded. The psychologist is now, more accurately, a persuasive expert whose professional assessment strengthens the petitioner's narrative, anchors the legal elements of the ground, and provides the trial court with the analytical framework needed to render a legally sufficient decision.
In a jurisdiction where the presumption of validity of marriages remains firmly in place, where the quantum of proof has been raised, and where the essential elements of gravity, juridical antecedence, and enduring incapacity must still be clearly and convincingly established, the prudent practitioner does not litigate Article 36 cases without one.
Consult with a Family Law Attorney
If you are considering filing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, the strength of your case depends significantly on how it is prepared and presented from the outset — from the initial assessment of your ground, through the gathering of evidence, to the engagement of the right psychological expert and the construction of a coherent and legally sufficient narrative before the court.
Vivas & Nobles Law Office handles annulment and family law matters with the preparation and precision that these proceedings demand. We assess each case on its own facts, advise on the proper remedy and evidentiary requirements, and build petitions designed to withstand scrutiny at every stage of litigation.
To schedule a legal consultation, you may reach us at:
📞 0995 433 5550 - viber call or whatsapp
📧 vivasnobles@gmail.com
All consultations are handled with strict confidentiality.