Case Digest (G.R. No. 254646)
Facts:
Aiko Yokogawa-Tan v. Jonnell Tan and the Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 254646, October 23, 2023, the Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Aiko Yokogawa‑Tan; respondents are Jonnell Tan (private respondent) and the Republic of the Philippines (public respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General).Petitioner and private respondent met in December 2003, cohabited for several years and married on January 29, 2012. Their only child, Aimii, was born June 6, 2012. Thereafter, respondent allegedly became distant, cold, unhelpful during petitioner’s postpartum recovery, spent little time at home, and eventually maintained a concurrent relationship with another woman who bore him a child; respondent left the conjugal home in January 2015 and lived with that woman. Petitioner discovered the extramarital relationship before and after marriage and recounts episodes of abandonment and lack of marital support.
On November 14, 2016 petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code alleging respondent’s psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations. Summons were served by substituted service; respondent did not file an Answer. The public prosecutor investigated and found no collusion. Clinical psychologist Dr. Nedy L. Tayag evaluated both spouses and diagnosed petitioner with a dependent personality disorder and respondent with antisocial personality disorder, concluding the disorders were grave, rooted in upbringing, incurable in the relevant legal sense, and made the marriage beyond repair.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 162, Pasig City) rendered a May 7, 2018 Decision dismissing the petition for insufficiency of evidence; its July 9, 2018 Order denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on November 27, 2020 denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC, holding the spouses’ actuations did not demonstrate psychological incapacity and finding Dr. Tayag’s report inadequate and one‑sided. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the S...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner prove by clear and convincing evidence that private respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code?
- Does the existence of acts that are grounds for legal separation (notably sexual infidelity) preclude a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36?
- May a court properly rely on expert psychiatric/psychological testimony and reports that were rendered without personal exam...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)