Republic vs.

CA and Molina
G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997

FACTS:

The case at bar challenges the decision of CA

affirming the marriage of the respondent
Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the
ground of psychological incapacity. The couple
got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo
manifested signs of immaturity and
irresponsibility both as husband and a father
preferring to spend more time with friends
whom he squandered his money, depends on
his parents for aid and assistance and was
never honest with his wife in regard to their
finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense
quarrel and as a result their relationship was
estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to
live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and
a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their
child. Since then he abandoned them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on

the ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD:

The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo

subsists and remains valid. What constitutes
psychological incapacity is not mere showing of
irreconcilable differences and confliction
personalities. It is indispensable that the
parties must exhibit inclinations which would
not meet the essential marital responsibilites
and duties due to some psychological illness.
Reynaldos action at the time of the marriage
did not manifest such characteristics that would
comprise grounds for psychological incapacity.
The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed
that she and her husband cannot get along with
each other and had not shown gravity of the
problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its
incurability. In addition, the expert testimony
by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric
disorder but only incompatibility which is not
considered as psychological incapacity.

The following are the guidelines as to the

grounds of psychological incapacity laid set
forth in this case:
burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the
plaintiff
root causes of the incapacity must be medically
and clinically inclined
such incapacity should be in existence at the
time of the marriage
such incapacity must be grave so as to disable
the person in complying with the essentials of
marital obligations of marriage
such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71
as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family
Code
decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate
Court or the Catholic Church must be respected
court shall order the prosecuting attorney and
the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the
state.
This is a petition for review on certiorari by the
Solicitor General assailing the January 25, 1993
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV
No. 34858 which affirmed the May 14, 1991
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of La
Trinidad, Benguet, declaring the respondent
Roridel Olaviano Molina and Reynaldo Molinas
marriage as void ab initio, on the ground of
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of
the Family Code.

FACTS:

Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo

Molina on 14 April 1985 in Manila, and gave
birth to a son a year after. Reynaldo showed
signs of immaturity and irresponsibility on the
early stages of the marriage, observed from his
tendency to spend time with his friends and
squandering his money with them, from his
dependency from his parents, and his
dishonesty on matters involving his finances.
Reynaldo was relieved of his job in 1986,
Roridel became the sole breadwinner thereafter.
In March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in
Manila and proceeded to Baguio City. Reynaldo
left her and their child a week later. The couple
is separated-in-fact for more than three years.

On 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a verified

petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage
to Reynaldo Molina. Evidence for Roridel
consisted of her own testimony, that of two of
her friends, a social worker, and a psychiatrist
of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical
Center. Reynaldo did not present any evidence
as he appeared only during the pre-trial
conference. On 14 May 1991, the trial court
rendered judgment declaring the marriage void.
The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the
appeals and affirmed in toto the RTCs decision.
Hence, the present recourse.

ISSUE: Whether opposing or conflicting

personalities should be construed as
psychological incapacity

HELD:The Court of Appeals erred in its opinion

the Civil Code Revision Committee intended to
liberalize the application of Philippine civil laws
on personal and family rights, and holding
psychological incapacity as a broad range of
mental and behavioral conduct on the part of
one spouse indicative of how he or she regards
the marital union, his or her personal
relationship with the other spouse, as well as
his or her conduct in the long haul for the
attainment of the principal objectives of
marriage; where said conduct, observed and
considered as a whole, tends to cause the union
to self-destruct because it defeats the very
objectives of marriage, warrants the dissolution
of the marriage.

The Court reiterated its ruling in Santos v. Court

of Appeals, where psychological incapacity
should refer to no less than a mental (not
physical) incapacity, existing at the time the
marriage is celebrated, and that there is hardly
any doubt that the intendment of the law has
been to confine the meaning of psychological

incapacity to the most serious cases of

personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized
by gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability. In the present case, there is no
clear showing to us that the psychological
defect spoken of is an incapacity; but appears
to be more of a difficulty, if not outright
refusal or neglect in the performance of
some marital obligations. Mere showing of
irreconcilable differences and conflicting
personalities in no wise constitutes
psychological incapacity.

The Court, in this case, promulgated the

guidelines in the interpretation and application
of Article 36 of the Family Code, removing any
visages of it being the most liberal divorce
procedure in the world: (1) The burden of proof
belongs to the plaintiff; (2) the root cause of
psychological incapacity must be medically or
clinically identified, alleged in the complaint,
sufficiently proven by expert, and clearly
explained in the decision; (3) The incapacity
must be proven existing at the time of the
celebration of marriage; (4) the incapacity must
be clinically or medically permanent or
incurable; (5) such illness must be grave
enough; (6) the essential marital obligation
must be embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the
Family Code as regards husband and wife, and
Articles 220 to 225 of the same code as regards
parents and their children; (7) interpretation
made by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church, and (8) the trial
must order the fiscal and the Solicitor-General
to appeal as counsels for the State.

The Supreme Court granted the petition, and

reversed and set aside the assailed decision;
concluding that the marriage of Roridel
Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and
remains valid.