Integrity
We’re in this together
Welcome to Fortun and Santos Law Offices
Competence. Integrity. Excellence.
Our Team
Meet Our Partners
Practice Areas
Fortun and Santos Law Offices offers a comprehensive range of legal services designed to address your needs, including:
Blog and News
By
How to Prove Psychological Incapacity (Art. 36 Family Code) | Fortun & Santos Law
I. INTRODUCTION
The famous—or rather infamous—jurisprudence, Tan-Andal v. Andal, discusses the story of Mario Victor M. Andal and Rosanna L. Tan, who were married on December 16, 1995. They had a daughter, Ma. Samantha. However, after four years of marriage, the couple separated in 2000 due to Mario’s alleged psychological incapacity. Mario initially filed for custody, asserting equal rights over Ma. Samantha, while Rosanna filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, attributing Mario’s psychological incapacity as the cause.
During their marriage, Mario exhibited behavior suggestive of psychological issues, such as unexplained absences, financial irresponsibility, drug use, and signs of paranoia. After Rosanna gave birth, Mario’s behavior worsened; he failed to support Rosanna and their daughter and continued drug use that led to further negligence and paranoid behavior. As these issues persisted, Rosanna eventually petitioned the Regional Trial Court to commit Mario to a drug rehabilitation center.
Among the witnesses presented by Rosanna was Dr. Valentina Del Fonso-Garcia, a physician-psychiatrist. Dr. Del Fonso-Garcia was presented as an expert witness and diagnosed Mario with narcissistic antisocial personality disorder and substance abuse disorder with psychotic features. These disorders allegedly prevented Mario from fulfilling his marital and parental responsibilities.
Upon cross-examination, the expert witness admitted that she was unable to interview Mario, as he failed to appear despite the invitations she sent. Thus, she acknowledged that her evaluation was based solely on interviews with Rosanna, the couple’s child, and another witness.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the Regional Trial Court granted Rosanna’s petition to have her marriage declared void on the ground of Mario’s psychological incapacity.
However, when Mario appealed, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s decision and held that the psychiatric findings on Mario were “unscientific and unreliable” since Mario had not been interviewed by the psychiatrist. The appellate court ruled that Dr. Del Fonso-Garcia “was working on pure suppositions and second-hand information fed to her by one side.”
When the matter was elevated to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Supreme Court offered a new lens under which psychological incapacity should be scrutinized as a ground to nullify a marriage.
The Supreme Court granted the petition. It found clear and convincing evidence to support Rosanna’s claim of Mario’s psychological incapacity. The Court held that psychological incapacity is not limited to medically diagnosed mental disorders but also includes character traits that prevent compliance with essential marital obligations.
This case established the doctrine that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code does not require medical or clinical identification but encompasses clear acts of dysfunctionality in personality that hinder the fulfillment of marital obligations. The Court emphatically declared that psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not a medical one.
II. REQUISITES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
The case of Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina set the guidelines—albeit incorrectly—for defining psychological incapacity and its legal requisites. The doctrine centered on the interpretation of “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of the Family Code, requiring it to be psychological in nature, grave, existing at the time of marriage, and incurable.
These guidelines emphasized the necessity of clearly showing these elements to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution, to wit:
- The psychological incapacity must be shown to have existed at the time of the celebration of marriage;
- It must be caused by a durable aspect of one’s personality structure, formed prior to the marriage;
- It must be caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause; and
- It must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for medical or clinical identification, the existence of incapacity at the time of marriage, and its incurability.
Citing Dr. Gerardo Veloso, former presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, Justice Vitug wrote that psychological incapacity must be characterized by:
(a) gravity,
(b) juridical antecedence, and
(c) incurability.
III. REVIEW OF CURRENT JURISPRUDENCE
Beginning with Tan-Andal, the Supreme Court clarified that psychological incapacity, as envisioned by the Family Code Revision Committee, is—again—a legal concept. Instead of being a medical illness, psychological incapacity is "[a] durable or enduring [aspect] 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 render him or her unable to understand, and more importantly, to comply with essential marital obligations.
In Datu v. Datu, the Supreme Court held that:
“Psychological incapacity, a ground to void a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, is a legal, not a medical, concept. As such, it is enough that parties prove that an enduring part of their personality renders them incapable of performing their essential marital obligations. That the psychological incapacity be rooted in a particular psychological illness is no longer necessary.”
In the more recent case of Georfo v. Republic, the Supreme Court reiterated that psychiatric examination is not required in cases of psychological incapacity. In that case, the marriage was declared void based on evidence of narcissistic personality disorder traits, as testified by a clinical psychologist.
The Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that long absence from the marital home may be sufficient to establish psychological incapacity, where it shows an inability to fulfill marital duties. Under Article 68 of the Family Code, spouses are obliged to live together and observe mutual love, respect, fidelity, and support. The lack of support for his wife and children, and unjustified absence from the family, indicated that the husband did not understand his responsibilities as a husband and father.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court has categorically abandoned the second Molina guideline—that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified—and held that psychological incapacity is not a medical illness requiring such identification. Expert opinion is therefore not mandatory. Instead, Tan-Andal requires proof of the enduring aspects of a person's personality—called "personality structure"—which manifest through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermine the family. This may be proven through the testimony of ordinary witnesses who were present in the spouses’ lives before marriage and who have consistently observed the incapacitated spouse’s behavior.
As to the incurability of psychological incapacity, the Court ruled that the requirement should be understood in the legal, not medical, sense. Legally, "incurability" 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. ‘An 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.’”
In light of the Court's definitive declaration, expert opinion is not required to prove psychological incapacity. In summary, Tan-Andal clarified that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and convincing evidence—which requires more than a preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of an expert witness on the incurability of psychological incapacity is not essential. What is essential is proving acts of dysfunctionality that undermine the family such that the spouse’s personality structure makes it impossible for him or her to understand and comply with essential marital obligations. This may be proven through objective and testimonial evidence.
By: Atty. Mikaelo Jaime C. Reyes
By
Processing Bail and its Requirements upon the Filing of a Criminal Information
What is Bail?
For the unacquainted, learning that a Criminal Case and Criminal Information have been filed against yourself, a loved one, or a client, is a harrowing and challenging experience, particularly when a warrant of arrest will or had already been issued.
We find comfort and solace, however, in the constitutionally granted right of an accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings [1] and the complimentary right of an accused to be granted bail while the criminal case against them is pending.
Bail is the security given to a court for the provisional liberty of a person charged in a criminal case, for which a warrant of arrest has been or will be issued, to guarantee the appearance of the accused before any court as required. In other words, upon posting bail, an accused will not need to be detained while the criminal case is ongoing as long as any and all bail conditions are complied with. This allows the accused to adequately prepare their defense without the anxiety and difficulties of detention.
Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
Bail is not always available to an accused.
The right to bail upon the filing of a Criminal Information, however, is not absolute and is not available to an accused charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:
"All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required."
Accordingly, if the Criminal Information charges an individual with a crime not punishable by reclusion perpetua, bail is immediately available as a matter of right and may be processed by a representative of the accused, preferably a lawyer of choice.
How to post Bail?
– Bail Requirements.
The Rules of Court and other issuances of the Supreme Court[2] of the Philippines specify the minimum requirements for the posting of bail. These requirements include:
- A notarized or sworn undertaking and waiver of appearance by the accused that they will appear before the proper court whenever required by the court or the Rules of Court and that failure to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of the right to be present. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia;
- Four (4) sets of the accused’s mugshots or photographs taken within the last six (6) months showing the face, front, left, and right profiles, of the accused with name and signature at the back of each picture;
- Certified True Copies of the Criminal Information;
- Left and right handprints or fingerprints;
- Barangay Certification intended for bail purposes, reflecting the real name and residence of the accused;
- Location plan or house sketch of the accused, certified by the barangay;
- If the accused is detained by or voluntarily surrendered to the police in a place different from where the case is pending, a certificate of detention showing the name, designation, and signature of the personnel authorized to issue the certification;
- Payment of bail amount recommended or imposed by the Court;
- Certified copy of the Order specifying the amount of bail if different from the specified amount recommended in the Criminal Information;
- If bail is posted by corporate surety bond, presentation of the original certificate of accreditation and authority issued by the Court Administrator containing the photograph of the authorized agent and a copy thereof; and
- If bail is posted by property bond, the transfer certificate of title of the property and its latest tax declaration.
As stated in OCA Circular No. 204-2022-AA, the above requirements are only the minimum documentary requirements for posting of bail.
Thus, it is prudent and highly recommended that when a Criminal Information has already been filed and raffled to a specific branch of that court, a representative of the accused inquires with the court to ask for the specific bail requirements of that court. Some courts may require a specific format for the undertaking or dispense with and no longer require strict compliance with the above requirements.
Note, however, that several of the documents required for the processing of bail may be secured or initially processed even prior to posting bail, particularly the barangay certification and house sketch of the residence of the accused, which may be in a city or province other than where bail will be posted.
Upon completion of the requirements to the satisfaction of the court, an order of release shall be issued granting bail and the provisional liberty of the accused, setting for the conditions that must be complied by the accused.
Should bail or any of its requirements need to be posted or processed or should bail be initially unavailable, whether by insufficiency of finances or a recommendation of ‘no bail’ in a Criminal Information, we recommend immediately consulting a lawyer to be apprised of remedies available to your particular circumstances.
[1] Article III Section 14(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
[2] Rule 114 Section 2; OCA Circular No. 204-2022-AA; A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC.
By
Rodrigo Duterte Arrested: Former Philippine President Faces ICC Charges Over Drug War Killings
Manila, Philippines — In a controversial and widely debated development, Rodrigo Duterte was arrested upon his arrival at Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport on March 11, 2025. The former Philippine president, known for his firm leadership and relentless campaign against illegal drugs, now faces charges filed by the International Criminal Court (ICC) related to his anti-drug efforts, which some critics claim resulted in extrajudicial killings.
Duterte's Arrest Raises Public Outcry
The news of Rodrigo Duterte's arrest has sparked a massive public outcry, particularly from his loyal supporters who believe that his war on drugs was a necessary action to protect the nation from the horrors of drug-related crimes. Duterte, who served as the country's president from 2016 to 2022, gained a reputation for his fearless stance on crime and drugs, significantly reducing criminal activities during his term.
Many Filipinos credit Duterte for restoring peace and order in the country. However, international human rights groups have been critical of his approach, alleging that thousands of lives were lost due to his tough anti-drug measures. Despite these criticisms, millions of Filipinos continue to admire and support Duterte for his bold leadership.
Duterte's Arrest and Legal Battle
Rodrigo Duterte was arrested immediately upon his return from a personal trip to Hong Kong. Philippine National Police (PNP) officials confirmed that they executed the arrest warrant as soon as his plane landed in Manila. Duterte was transported to Camp Crame, where he is currently detained pending legal procedures. However, many legal analysts question the validity of the arrest, given that the Philippines had withdrawn from the Rome Statute in 2019.
Duterte's legal team, led by former presidential legal counsel Salvador Panelo, strongly condemned the arrest, stating that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the Philippines and that the arrest is purely politically motivated. "President Duterte only did what was necessary to protect the Filipino people. This arrest is a direct attack against a man who devoted his life to serving the nation," said Panelo.
ICC Charges Against Duterte
The International Criminal Court has charged Rodrigo Duterte with crimes against humanity, citing alleged extrajudicial killings during his administration’s war on drugs. However, many supporters and political analysts argue that the war on drugs significantly decreased crime rates and made communities safer.
"The people who benefited from Duterte's leadership are the ordinary Filipinos who could finally sleep peacefully at night," said one supporter outside Camp Crame. "This arrest is unjust and is an insult to a man who served the country with his heart."
Filipinos Rally Behind Duterte
Following the Rodrigo Duterte arrest, thousands of supporters gathered outside Camp Crame and in various parts of the country to show their support for the former president. Social media has been flooded with hashtags like #StandWithDuterte and #JusticeForDuterte, calling for his immediate release.
Many believe that the ICC’s arrest warrant is politically motivated and orchestrated by international forces that oppose Duterte’s radical methods in fighting crime. Meanwhile, human rights activists maintain that the arrest is a step toward seeking justice for the alleged victims of the drug war.
Need a Mobile App or Website Developer?
If you are looking to build a mobile app or a website, visit ServicioPro.ph — a trusted platform for hiring skilled app developers and web developers in the Philippines. Get your project started today with top-rated professionals.
What's Next for Rodrigo Duterte?
With Rodrigo Duterte arrested, the next step involves extraditing Duterte to The Hague, Netherlands, where he will stand trial before the International Criminal Court. However, his legal team is expected to mount a strong defense, insisting that Duterte's actions were in the best interest of the Filipino people.
Supporters remain hopeful that justice will prevail and that Duterte's arrest will only strengthen his legacy as a leader who prioritized peace and order above all else. Political analysts predict that the Duterte arrest may lead to intensified national debate about the role of international bodies in Philippine sovereignty.
By
Chiz Escudero: Duterte's Admissions May Signal a Step Toward Accountability for Drug War Killings
enate President Francis "Chiz" G. Escudero stated today that former President Rodrigo Duterte's recent statements during a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing could signify an initial step toward taking responsibility for the violent drug war conducted under his administration.
While Escudero acknowledged that Duterte’s testimony largely echoed his previous statements from his time in office, he noted a key difference: this time, Duterte’s words were given under oath.
"Yesterday, every word he spoke was under oath. He swore that what he stated was true to the best of his knowledge. This can be used either in his defense or against him," Escudero said.
Duterte’s statements were officially recorded, with the hearing transcripts soon to be available for any interested parties and the general public.
Escudero emphasized that, unlike in the past, where Duterte’s spokespersons dismissed his strong statements on drug-related killings as jest, Duterte can no longer make this claim, having testified under oath.
"It seems he stands by what he did and said—he’s not hiding from it. His statement yesterday was clear: ‘I am willing to take full responsibility, just me.’ How that is implemented remains to be seen. Perhaps this is Duterte’s way of putting that sentiment into action, bravely facing and admitting to what transpired," Escudero added.
The Senate President pointed out that, despite the drug war killings during Duterte’s administration and his time as Davao City mayor, no charges have been filed against Duterte himself, nor against his Philippine National Police (PNP) chiefs or Davao City’s former police leaders.
"He is without a case. The former PNP chiefs and Davao City police heads are also untouched by any murder cases. The officers facing charges are those who, it appears, either followed orders or acted as they saw fit. They are the ones dismissed from service, imprisoned," Escudero said.
From Duterte's testimony, Escudero said the former President seemed "clear in his message."
Reflecting on his experience with Duterte, Escudero noted, "He often acts in unexpected ways. Perhaps his firm stance yesterday stems from a desire to bear responsibility, as time has passed, yet the consequences have largely fallen on low-ranking officers—not those at the top."
As a lawyer, Escudero underscored that the Constitution prohibits anyone from taking the law into their own hands, regardless of motive.
"The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that ‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’ This foundational principle in our Constitution demands that human rights be respected, especially by the government and those in authority," Escudero stated.
"Even the government must uphold the process. A civilized government does no less than ensuring due process for all, no matter the emotional weight or urgency," he said.
Escudero concluded that it is now up to affected parties, particularly the families of the drug war victims, to determine their next steps in light of Duterte’s sworn statements.