“In an attempt to close the floodgates to avoid further misinterpretation, the Court, in the

most recent case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, has finally taken pains to restate the prevailing
understanding of the doctrine, which has proven to be, in every manner, “restrictive,
rigid, and intrusive of our rights to liberty, autonomy, and human dignity.” After all, as
iterated in Kalaw v. Fernandez, the judicial understanding of psychological incapacity
must be continuously informed by evolving standards, taking into account the particulars
of each case, by current trends in psychological and even canonical thought, and by
experience”.

Too, in Raphy Valdez De Silva, it was held that the “personal examination of the
allegedly psychologically incapacitated spouse is not required for a declaration of
nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity”.  Thus, “While it may be true that
expert opinion is no longer required, it can still be considered; thus, the CA erred in
discounting the expert opinion of the psychiatrist for being “unscientific and unreliable”.
Facts reveal that the mental evaluation of Mario was not based on collateral information,
as the psychiatrist based her diagnosis on a personal history handwritten by Mario
himself. This, aside from interviews from Rosanna, Ma. Samantha, and Jocelyn
Genevieve, Rosanna’s sister, is sufficient to come up with a reliable diagnosis. After all,
the Court said in Marcos v. Marcos, “personal examination of the allegedly
psychologically incapacitated spouse is not required for a declaration of nullity of
marriage due to psychological incapacity”.