G.R. No. 250287 - Fopalan vs. Fopalan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 250287)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Marriage solemnized: August 7, 1995 (church rites in Dumaguete City). Petition for declaration of nullity filed: June 25, 2013. Trial court decision: February 24, 2016 (declaring marriage void ab initio). Trial court order on reconsideration: August 25, 2016 (reversing initial ruling and declaring marriage valid). Court of Appeals decision: September 10, 2018 (affirming validity of marriage). Court of Appeals resolution denying reconsideration: August 19, 2019. Supreme Court resolution: petition for review on certiorari granted and lower appellate ruling reversed; trial court’s original decision reinstated and marriage declared void ab initio.

Factual Background

Petitioner and respondent met in college and dated intermittently while respondent concurrently maintained relationships with other women. They cohabited, were married in 1995, and worked in petitioner’s family‑owned school. The parties had a son, Matthew, born October 16, 1999, later diagnosed with autism. Over the course of the marriage petitioner alleged respondent displayed persistent emotional distance, financial selfishness (with petitioner largely providing for the family), repeated infidelity (including messages and photographs found on respondent’s phones), failure to bond with and instances of abusive conduct toward the couple’s child (including an episode of violently shaking the infant), and an overall pattern of disrespect, arrogance, and neglect.

Trial Evidence and Expert Report

Petitioner, Dr. Tayag, and petitioner’s co‑worker Nobleza testified and affirmed their judicial affidavits. Respondent did not participate or file an answer. Dr. Tayag administered psychological testing to petitioner and performed a psychodynamic assessment of respondent based on collateral interviews (petitioner, corroborative witnesses, and a telephone interview with respondent’s brother). Dr. Tayag diagnosed respondent with narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders, described pervasive grandiosity, lack of empathy, entitlement, insensitivity, and an enduring inability to fulfill marital and parental obligations, and concluded that respondent was psychologically incapacitated in the legal sense.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court initially declared the marriage void ab initio on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity. Following a motion for reconsideration by the Office of the Solicitor General, the trial court reversed its decision by order dated August 25, 2016, and declared the marriage valid and subsisting. The denial of respondent’s actual participation in the proceedings and the public prosecutor’s report finding no collusion are part of the trial record.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the post‑reconsideration trial court ruling that the marriage was valid. The CA found the totality of petitioner’s evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity under Article 36, highlighting particularly the absence of a personal clinical examination of respondent by the expert, the hearsay nature of much of the evidence underpinning the expert’s conclusions, and the view that marital disappointment, neglect, or infidelity does not automatically equate to legal psychological incapacity.

Issues Presented on Review

The determinative issues included: (1) whether respondent suffered psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code as interpreted by pertinent jurisprudence; (2) whether Dr. Tayag’s failure to personally examine respondent fatally undermined her expert opinion; and (3) whether petitioner met the requisite quantum and quality of proof—now framed by recent jurisprudence (notably Tan‑Andal) as clear and convincing evidence—showing gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability (in the legal sense) of the incapacity.

Applicable Legal Standard and Judicial Evolution

Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage is void if a party was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at the time of celebration, even if the incapacity manifests only thereafter. The Court distilled the Molina factors—gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability—but more recent Supreme Court pronouncements (Tan‑Andal v. Andal) recharacterized psychological incapacity as a legal concept rooted in an enduring personality structure that renders a spouse ill‑equipped to discharge fundamental marital duties. Tan‑Andal clarified: expert opinion is no longer indispensable; ordinary witnesses who observed the spouse’s behavior before marriage can be relevant; juridical antecedence may be shown by evidence of formative experiences predating the marriage; the required quantum of proof is clear and convincing evidence; and “incurability” must be understood in a legal, not strictly medical, sense—i.e., the incapacity is enduring and makes reconciliation or effective treatment unlikely in the context of the particular marital pairing.

Supreme Court’s Analytical Application — Gravity

Applying Tan‑Andal’s modified criteria, the Court found respondent’s behavior demonstrated more than mild character flaws or marital disappointments. Evidence showed persistent failure to render mutual love, respect, fidelity, and support; financial selfishness in which respondent failed to share earnings; repeated infidelities (including relations with students); and marked neglect, shame, and at times abusive conduct toward an autistic child who required special care. The Court concluded these manifestations evince a personality structure seriously disabling respondent from performing essential marital duties.

Supreme Court’s Analytical Application — Juridical Antecedence

The Court accepted evidence indicating that respondent’s dysfunctional personality traits had origins in his early life. The psychological assessment described an upbringing involving adoption dynamics, animosity toward a biological sibling, and inconsistent caregiving that contributed to an egocentric and irresponsible orientation predating the marriage. The Court held that such formative background, together with respondent’s pattern of dating multiple women before marriage, supports a finding that the incapacity had juridical antecedence.

Supreme Court’s Analytical Application — Incurability (Legal Sense)

The Court viewed the incapacity as enduring and persistent over a 17‑year marriage marked by continuous manifestations of the same disabling traits, with no meaningful change or prospect of rehabilitation. The Court found the spouses’ personality structures to be incompatible and antagonistic such that reconciliation would be impracticable and the marriage inevitably prone to irreparable breakdown, satisfying the Tan‑Andal conception of incurability in the legal sense.

Admissibility and Weight of Expert Opinion

Although Tan‑Andal reduced dependency o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 250287)

The Case

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 10, 2018 and Resolution dated August 19, 2019 in CA-G.R. CV No. 107835 ("Zeth D. Fopalan vs. Neil F. Fopalan") that upheld the validity of petitioner’s marriage to respondent and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court opinion is penned by Justice Lazaro-Javier and addresses whether respondent is psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code, thereby rendering the marriage void ab initio.
The petition challenges factual and legal determinations made by the Court of Appeals regarding psychological incapacity and the sufficiency and admissibility of the expert psychological evidence.

Antecedents and Factual Background

Petitioner and respondent first met in college; respondent pursued petitioner with love letters and roses and admitted dating multiple women simultaneously while courting petitioner.
Respondent acknowledged having another long-standing relationship (Shirley) who later married another man; respondent followed petitioner to her hometown in Dumaguete and cohabited with her and her family’s school staff.
Petitioner and respondent were married in church rites in Dumaguete City on August 7, 1995 and worked at petitioner’s family-owned school; they later moved to Romblon and then to Manila and Sta. Mesa at various times.
Petitioner was predominantly the breadwinner; respondent often did not share earnings, left household provision to petitioner, and became the primary care provider’s burden.
On October 16, 1999 petitioner gave birth to their son Matthew, later diagnosed with autism; respondent exhibited hostility and physical violence toward the infant (an incident of shaking the child) and thereafter showed increasing distance, shame, and neglect toward Matthew.
Respondent engaged in repeated extramarital affairs; petitioner discovered affectionate messages and photos of naked girls on respondent’s phones, including a working student from their school.
Petitioner adopted another child so Matthew would have a companion; petitioner repeatedly attempted to preserve the marriage but ultimately separated after years of respondent’s continuing infidelity and indifference.
Petitioner consulted clinical psychologist Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag for a psychological evaluation of herself and respondent; Dr. Tayag could not directly interview respondent because respondent kept changing his phone number and did not present himself for evaluation.

Procedural History

June 25, 2013: Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity.
June 28, 2013: Trial court ordered service of summons; respondent received notice but did not file an answer or participate in proceedings.
August 12, 2013: Trial court ordered public prosecutor to investigate alleged collusion; public prosecutor reported no collusion.
Testimonies at trial included petitioner, Dr. Tayag, and petitioner’s co-worker Araceli Nobleza; the judicial affidavit of petitioner’s brother Mark Anthony De Vera was marked but his testimony dispensed.
February 24, 2016: Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna declared the marriage void ab initio on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity.
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion for reconsideration; August 25, 2016: RTC reversed per order and declared the marriage valid and subsisting.
September 10, 2018: Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s August 25, 2016 order, finding petitioner’s evidence insufficient to establish psychological incapacity.
August 19, 2019: Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Supreme Court granted petitioner’s Rule 45 petition, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC’s February 24, 2016 decision declaring the marriage void ab initio on ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity; property relations dissolved.

Evidence Adduced at Trial

Petitioner’s sworn testimony (judicial affidavit) detailing marital history, respondent’s conduct, financial non-support, infidelity, hostility to their autistic son, and petitioner’s efforts to preserve the marriage.
Testimony of Araceli Nobleza corroborating petitioner’s account, describing respondent’s arrogance, public berating of petitioner and the child, and respondent’s shame and maltreatment of Matthew.
Psychological evaluation and written report of Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag addressing petitioner’s psychological health and respondent’s psychological condition; Dr. Tayag testified as an expert.
Mark Anthony De Vera’s judicial affidavit was marked in evidence though his live testimony was dispensed.
Respondent did not appear, answer, or present testimony or counter-evidence at trial.

Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag’s Psychological Report and Findings

Qualifications and experience: practicing clinical psychologist since 1976; chief psychologist at HLT Psychiatric and Psychological Services since 1992; had previously testified as expert in nullity cases over a hundred times.
Methodology for petitioner: personally administered multiple psychological tests (Revised Beta Examination II; Bender Visual Motor Gestalt; Draw-A-Person; Rorschach; Sach’s Sentence Completion; MMPI; Hand Test; Self Analysis) and clinical interview; concluded petitioner was psychologically healthy to perform marital obligations.
Methodology for respondent: did not personally interview respondent; conducted psychodynamic analysis based on petitioner’s and corroborative witnesses’ accounts and a phone interview with respondent’s brother Efren Fopalan.
Diagnostic conclusion: respondent suffers from narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders manifesting as sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, insensitivity, irritability, aggression, imprudence, failure to plan, and persistent extramarital behavior; respondent’s condition traced to early life experiences and unhealthy socio-emotional development.
Prognosis and recommendation: Dr. Tayag characterized respondent’s condition as grave, serious, chronic, and incurable in practical terms; recommended the marriage be declared null and void, concluding reconciliation prospects uncertain or impossible.

Admissibility and Weight of Expert Opinion (as Applied)

The Court adopted principles that expert opinion must be from credible experts possessing special knowledge and must be based on sound methodology and scientific p