February 4th, 1:00am February 4th, 1:00am Eduardo MartinezAnteroom

BB filed for the declaration of nullity of her marriage (or annulment as colloquially termed) to CC with the court. She was confident that she would be granted the nullity as she had an expert — a psychiatrist at that — to substantiate CC’s alleged psychological incapacity. And so, in due time, the psychiatrist testified. With much flamboyance and medical eloquence, the physician comprehensively explained to the court that, after tests conducted on and conferences with BB, he found CC indubitably psychologically incapacitated. With such expert testimony and nary an opposition from CC, BB found it a walk in the park with an expectation of a favorable decision handed down in no time.

And indeed, the decision came soon after. Lo and behold, her plea for nullity was denied. She could not believe what she read. She rushed to the psychiatrist and asked if they were wanting in tests and conferences. The latter claimed everything was done by the book. And so, BB asked the court to take a second look at its decision, but the court refused to reconsider it. Aggrieved, BB went up to the next tier court and then the highest one. In those instances, both courts agreed with the findings of the trial court.

So, what went wrong, she pondered. Everything seemed to have been done systematically. And who would be in a better position to prove psychological incapacity than an expert; in this case, a psychiatrist at that. The psychiatrist apparently did his homework. BB narrated to him all the “defects” of CC, which made the latter conclude that based on such, CC is no doubt psychologically incapacitated.

No one corroborated her representations whatsoever. And the psychiatrist, without further validating the alleged facts with anyone, formed a conclusion.

That is where the problem lies. Yes, BB narrated to the psychiatrist CC’s supposed defects. But she did this alone. No one corroborated her representations whatsoever. And the psychiatrist, without further validating the alleged facts with anyone, formed a conclusion. To this kind of evidence-collation and evaluation by the psychiatrist, the Supreme Court in Republic of the Philippines versus Tionglico (G.R. 218630, 11 January 2018) had this to say: “To make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse’s psychological incapacity based on the information fed by only one side… is not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence…. Although we commiserate with (the wife’s) predicament, we are hard pressed to affirm the RTC and CA when the totality of evidence is clearly lacking to support the factual and legal conclusions that (the husband) and (the wife’s) marriage is void ab initio. No other evidence or witnesses were presented by (the wife) to prove (the husband’s) psychological incapacity. Basic is the rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof, i.e., mere allegations are not evidence. Here, we reiterate that apart from the psychiatrist, (the wife) did not present other witnesses to substantiate her allegations on (the husband’s) psychological incapacity. Her testimony, therefore, is considered self-serving and had no serious evidentiary rule.”

So here you see that the presentation of an expert is not an instant passport to freedom from the marriage. Expert testimony is not enough if there is no substantial evidence to back it up. Yes, it is true that the expert will base his findings on the tests conducted on and conferences with the petitioner. But evidence gathering should not stop there. It necessitates that other witnesses be interviewed too to confirm what the petitioner declared. Ideally, of course, the respondent – the husband – should give his side of the story to the psychiatrist.

But more often than not, in my practice, the respondent does not show up. Thus, the physician relies not only on the petitioner’s narration, based on her perception of reality; but, more importantly, on others’ account as well. With the others’ confirmation, the psychiatrist gets an impartial story. He is able to validate or discard what the petitioner is saying. And from there, the expert can have a truthful account of what really transpired. He can thereafter properly and adequately find whether the other party is psychologically incapacitated or not.