“Recently, in Tan-Andal v. Andal, the court dispensed with the requirement of permanence or incurability and held that the testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases… 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 essential marital obligations. Therefore, as long as the totality of evidence presented by the petitioner shows a clear case of psychological incapacity, the testimony of an expert witness, such as Dr. Penaranda, is not even needed.”
This is the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Republic of the Philippines vs Bryan D. Yeban and Maria Fe B. Padua-Yeban (G.R. 219709 promulgated on 17 November 2021).
Admittedly, despite such, in invariably many cases filed and pending with the courts today, many petitioners in the declaration of nullity of marriage cases still avail of expert testimony. I for one, still use a psychiatrist in the cases I handle. The physician greatly contributes to proving the elements necessary especially juridical antecedence when the petitioner has no witness to testify on the respondent’s behavior before marriage. For me and I believe for a host of other practitioners, a medical expert is still an integral part of the process of proving a party’s psychological incapacity.
We thus now see cases being decided by the Supreme Court after the Tan-Andal ruling, still dwelling on the probative value of the report and testimony of the psychiatrist. This is what happened in the case I cited above. Petitioner Bryan filed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent Fe. Included in his evidence is the presentation of Dr. Maria Nena R. Penaranda who testified on the respondent’s psychological incapacity.
On appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General made an issue of the fact that Dr. Penaranda never personally examined and interviewed Fe. Thus, the Highest Court declared, “[c]lutching at straws, petitioner contends that the CA Decision lacks factual and legal bases solely because Dr. Penaranda never personally examined and interviewed Fe. Petitioner’s contention lacks merit. For one, a person afflicted with a personality disorder will not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof. In most instances, he or she may not be aware of the problem because the abnormal behavior, which has never been corrected, comes naturally to him or her. For another, marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other. As such, jurisprudence abounds that the lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence.”
In Kalaw v. Fernandez, the Court held that there is no requirement for one to be declared psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined by a physician.
It is already settled that the courts must accord weight to expert testimony on the psychological and mental state of the parties in cases for the declaration of the nullity of marriages, for by their very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code the courts, ‘despite having the primary task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but instead, consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.’ “Consequently, the lack of personal examination and interview of the person diagnosed with personality disorder, like the respondent, did not per se invalidate the findings of the experts… To be sure, doctors within their field of expertise can diagnose the psychological makeup of a person on a number of factors which can be taken from different sources.”
So here you still see the importance and significance of expert testimony. While they may no longer be considered indispensable, courts can still appreciate their valuable findings when presented. They are integral to the process.
The facts and citations are from the case mentioned above.