Republic vs CA and Roridel Olaviana Molina February 13, 1997 GR 108763 FC 36 Facts Respondent was married to Reynaldo Molina

lina on April 14, 1985 and gave birth to a son a year later. During the early stages of their marriage, Reynaldo exhibited signs of immaturity and irresponsibility (tendency to spend more time with peers and squandering his money with them; dependency on parents and dishonesty involving his finances) Reynaldo was relieved from his job in 1986 and the herein respondent became the breadwinner of the family. March 1987, Respondent resigned from her job and moved to Baguio city. Reynaldo left her and their child a week later. The couple had lived separately for three years. On August 16, 1990 the respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage at the RTC and introduced evidence (own testimony, friends, social worker and psychiatrist). Reynaldo was only present during the pretrial thus, he did not introduce any evidence. The RTC ruled for the respondent, declaring their marriage null and void. The solicitor general appealed to the Court of Appeals but the CA affirmed the ruling of the lower court. Hence, the present petition. Conflicting personalities between the spouses should NOT be construed as psychological incapacity This case shows the guidelines promulgated for the application of FC 36

Issue WON the opposing and conflicting personalities of the spouses can render their marriage void on the grounds of psychological incapacity Held [No] 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. Wherefore the petition is GRANTED and the marriage between Reynaldo Molina and Roridel Molina is subsisting and valid