Practice question
A spouse in an Article 36 case says a slightly heavier evidentiary balance necessarily suffices because all civil cases invariably use ordinary preponderance. What is the proper response?
- Correct; no civil issue can have a different quantum
- Correct; Article 36 requires no evidence
- Incorrect; Tan-Andal prescribes clear and convincing evidence for the psychological-incapacity claim
- Incorrect; every civil case instead requires criminal proof
- Correct if the spouse files first
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/may2021/gr_196359_2021.html — Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021, EN BANC MAIN decision (clear and convincing evidence; Article 36).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/aug2025/gr_259322_2025.html — Chan Tee Ten v. Tee Ten, G.R. No. 259322, August 6, 2025, MAIN decision (clear and convincing quantum reaffirmed).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_265570_2025.html — People v. Akil, G.R. No. 265570, April 7, 2025, MAIN decision (police-initiated private questioning of a detainee and custodial confession).
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/pdf/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.pdf — A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, current Rules 128 §3, 130 §§21–22, 131 §1, 133 §§1–2,4–6.
- https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html — 1987 Constitution, Article III §§2–3,12,14 (exclusionary protections and due process).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.