Supreme Court Decisions
SOURCE EXPLAINERTan-Andal: a legal concept, a demanding evidentiary inquiry
Psychological incapacity is not reduced to a medical diagnosis or ordinary marital difficulty.
The cited official text was checked for the provisions or ruling discussed here. This is a focused source reading, not a certification that no later development affects the subject.
What happened
In Tan-Andal, the Supreme Court revisited the approach to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and granted the petition before it.
What the law/case says
The majority treated psychological incapacity as a legal concept rather than a medical illness that must be clinically identified. Expert opinion is not indispensable. The incapacity must nonetheless be proved by clear and convincing evidence and tied to essential marital obligations, with the characteristics explained in the decision.
Why it matters
Removing a mandatory medical label did not create an automatic remedy for an unsuccessful marriage. The evidence must establish the legally relevant incapacity, not simply conflict, disappointment or unwillingness.
Practical takeaway
A case assessment should connect specific facts and reliable evidence to the Court’s framework. Read the majority’s discussion of gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability, together with subsequent decisions applying it. This article does not predict whether a petition will succeed.
Official source/citation
The official decision includes separate opinions. This Brief summarizes the majority’s legal framework, rather than treating the facts of one marriage as a checklist for another.