Psychological incapacity is a legal term used in the Philippines to describe a

mental or psychological condition that renders a person unable to comply

with the essential obligations of marriage. This concept has been recognized
as a ground for annulment of marriage under Philippine law and has been the
subject of various legal interpretations and controversies over the years. The
concept of psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage
was first introduced in the Philippines through the 1987 Philippine
Constitution and the Family Code of the Philippines. The Family Code,
which took effect on August 3, 1988, provides that a marriage may be
annulled if either party is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations. The psychological incapacity must be
characterized by “gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.

The first case that applied the concept of psychological incapacity as a

ground for annulment was the landmark case of Republic v. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. 108763, 1997), also known as the Molina case. In this
case, the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognized that psychological
incapacity can be used as a ground for annulment and provided guidelines
for the determination of psychological incapacity. According to the Molina
case, psychological incapacity must be a true psychiatric illness, must be
grave or serious, and must be incurable. The Supreme Court also noted that
psychological incapacity must be demonstrated by expert evidence, and that
the illness must be proven to exist at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.Since the Molina case, there have been various legal interpretations
of the concept of psychological incapacity in the Philippines. Some have
argued that the definition provided in the Molina case is too narrow and
should be expanded to include other forms of mental or psychological
incapacity, such as personality disorders or behavioral problems. Others
have argued that the definition provided in the Molina case is too broad and
could be used to annul marriages for any reason.

1
In recent years, there have been attempts to clarify the definition of
psychological incapacity in the Philippines. In 2010, the Supreme Court
issued a resolution in the case of Republic v. Makalintal, which provided
additional guidelines for the determination of psychological incapacity.
According to the Makalintal case, psychological incapacity must be
permanent, serious, and incurable, and must result in a person being unable
to fulfill the essential marital obligations of marriage. The Makalintal case
also emphasized the importance of expert evidence in the determination of
psychological incapacity and stated that a mere showing of irreconcilable
differences or conflicting personalities is not enough to prove psychological
incapacity.

The case of Rosanna L. Tan-Andal vs. Mario Victor M. Andal is a recent

ruling by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on the issue of psychological
incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage. In this case, the petitioner
sought to annul her marriage to the respondent on the grounds of
psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the petition for annulment,
but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and dismissed the petition.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, affirmed the dismissal of the petition for
annulment. The Court noted that the trial court had relied solely on the
testimony of the petitioner and her witnesses, and had failed to consider the
absence of expert evidence to prove the respondent's psychological
incapacity. The Court also pointed out that the trial court's findings were
inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in the Molina case and the
Makalintal case, which require expert evidence to prove the existence of
psychological incapacity. This ruling reaffirms the importance of expert
evidence in the determination of psychological incapacity as a ground for
annulment of marriage in the Philippines. It also highlights the need for trial
courts to carefully consider all the evidence presented in cases involving
psychological incapacity, and to ensure that their findings are consistent
with the guidelines set forth by previous Supreme Court rulings.In
conclusion, the ruling in the case of Rosanna L. Tan-Andal vs. Mario Victor

2
M. Andal emphasizes the need for careful and thorough evaluation of
evidence in cases involving psychological incapacity as a ground for
annulment of marriage. It also underscores the importance of expert
evidence in the determination of psychological incapacity, and reinforces the
guidelines set forth in previous Supreme Court rulings on this issue.

Psychological incapacity is a complex and evolving concept in Philippine

law. It was first introduced as a ground for annulment of marriage through
the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Family Code of the Philippines and
has since been the subject of various legal interpretations and controversies.
Despite attempts to clarify the definition of psychological incapacity, the
concept remains a controversial issue in the Philippines and continues to be
a topic of debate among legal experts and practitioners.

3
Land titling is a critical process in the Philippines that determines the
ownership rights of individuals and entities over a piece of land. In order to
secure and protect these rights, the land titling process must be carried out in
a careful and thorough manner. This process is governed by the Property
Registration Decree (Presidential Decree No. 1529) and the Torrens system
of land registration, which provides a clear and official record of these
ownership rights.

Step 1: Preparation of Documents

The first step in the land titling process is the preparation of the necessary
documents. This includes proof of ownership, such as a copy of the transfer
certificate of title, a copy of the sales invoice, or a copy of the deed of sale.
In order to be considered valid, these documents must be complete and
accurate, and must be accompanied by the required supporting documents,
such as proof of identity and proof of address. Proof of identity can be a
valid government-issued ID or passport, while proof of address can be a
barangay certificate or a utility bill.

Step 2: Submission of Documents

Once the necessary documents have been prepared, the applicant must
submit them to the appropriate government agency responsible for land
registration. This could be the Register of Deeds or the Land Registration
Authority. In addition to the documents, the applicant must also pay the
required fees and charges, which may include the transfer tax, documentary
stamp tax, and registration fees.

Step 3: Processing and Approval of Application

4
After the submission of the necessary documents and fees, the government
agency will process the application and determine its validity. This may
involve a review of the submitted documents, an inspection of the property,
and a verification of the identity of the applicant. If the application is
deemed valid, the government agency will approve it and proceed to the next
step in the process.

Step 4: Issuance of the Title

Once the application has been approved, the government agency will issue
the new title to the applicant. This title serves as the official and legally
recognized document of ownership for the piece of land and includes a
description of the property, its location, and the names of the current and
previous owners. The issuance of the title is a critical step in securing the
ownership rights of the applicant and providing a clear and official record of
these rights.

Step 5: Recording of the Title

After the issuance of the title, the government agency will record it in the
official registry of titles. This registry is a database of all the titles issued for
properties in the country, and serves as the official record of ownership for
each piece of land. The recording of the title ensures that the ownership
rights of the applicant are protected and recognized by law, and that the
ownership rights are clearly established and easily accessible to the public.

In conclusion, the land titling process in the Philippines is a critical step in

securing and protecting the ownership rights of individuals and entities over
a piece of land. By following the steps outlined above and ensuring that the
necessary documents and fees are properly submitted and processed,
individuals and entities can ensure that their ownership rights are recognized

5
and protected by law. The official and legally recognized title, together with
the recording of the title in the official registry of titles, serves as clear
evidence of these rights and helps to prevent disputes and challenges to
ownership in the future.

The case of Kian Delos Santos involves several legal issues, including the
use of excessive force by law enforcement, the right to due process, and the
protection of individual rights under the Philippine Constitution.

One of the key legal issues in the case of Kian Delos Santos is the use of
excessive force by law enforcement. The Philippine Constitution prohibits
the use of excessive force and mandates that law enforcement officers may
only use such force as is reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate
purpose. In the case of Kian Delos Santos, there is evidence to suggest that
the police officers used excessive force, as he was shot multiple times while
he was lying on the ground and was unarmed at the time of his death.
Another important legal issue in this case is the right to due process. The
Philippine Constitution guarantees every individual the right to due process
of law, which includes the right to a fair and impartial trial. In the case of
Kian Delos Santos, there are concerns about the fairness of the proceedings,
as there were inconsistencies in the police officers' accounts of the incident
and the results of the initial investigation were reportedly influenced by
political pressure. Finally, the case of Kian Delos Santos raises important
questions about the protection of individual rights under the Philippine
Constitution. The Philippine Constitution recognizes the inherent dignity
and worth of every individual and mandates that the state shall protect and
promote the rights of all individuals, especially the rights of the youth. In the
case of Kian Delos Santos, there are concerns that his rights were violated
by the actions of the police officers and that he was denied his right to life
and security of person.

6
One remedy available to the family is to file a criminal complaint against the
police officers involved in the death of Kian. Under Philippine law, the
family has the right to file a complaint for the crime of murder or homicide,
which is punishable by imprisonment and fine. The criminal complaint can
be filed with the Department of Justice or with the local prosecutor's office.
Another remedy available to the family is to pursue a civil lawsuit for
damages. A civil lawsuit allows the family to seek monetary compensation
for the harm they have suffered as a result of Kian's death. The lawsuit can
be filed with the appropriate civil court, and the family can seek
compensation for various forms of damages, including loss of support,
funeral expenses, and emotional distress. The family may also seek
administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the appropriate
government agencies, such as the Commission on Human Rights or the
Philippine National Police Internal Affairs Service. These agencies have the
authority to investigate allegations of human rights violations and police
misconduct.

One possible defense that the police officers may raise is self-defense.If the
police officers claim that they acted in self-defense, they will need to show
that they believed that their lives or the lives of others were in imminent
danger and that they used only the force necessary to protect themselves.
Philippine law recognizes that law enforcement officers have a duty to
enforce the law and to maintain public order. If the police officers argue that
they were acting in the fulfillment of their duty, they will need to show that
their actions were reasonably necessary to carry out their duty and that they
did not use excessive force. The police officers may raise “obedience to a
superior order”, Under Philippine law, a person may not be held criminally
liable for an act that was performed in obedience to a superior order,
provided that the order was not obviously illegal. If the police officers claim
that they were following orders from a superior, they will need to show that
the order was lawful and that they did not have reason to believe that it was
illegal. The police officers involved in the death of Kian Delos Santos may

7
raise several defenses to the allegations against them. However, the
applicability of these defenses will depend on the specific facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence available to support each
defense.

Sources:

 Rosanna L. Tan-Andal vs. Mario Victor M. Andal (G.R. No. 196359,

May 11, 2021), Supreme Court of the Philippines

 Republic v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 108763, 1997), Supreme Court

of the Philippines

 Republic v. Makalintal (G.R. No. 166858, 2010), Supreme Court of the

Philippines

 Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Act No. 3815.

 Presidential Decree No. 1529, Property Registration Decree (1978)

 Land Registration Authority, https://www.lra.gov.ph/