Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Practitioners refer to the guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36 as
the Molina Doctrine, considering that the set of guidelines were first compiled in the
1997 case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Roridel Olaviano Molina (G.R. No.
108763). There are eight guidelines: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence
and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity; (2) The root cause
of the psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the
complaint, sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision; (3) The
incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage; (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent
or incurable; (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage; (6) The essential marital
obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as
regards the husband and wife, as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children; (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or
decisive, should be given great respect by our courts; and, (8) The trial court must order
the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the
state.
In Kalaw, the Supreme Court reiterated its categorical statement, made in a 2009 case,
that we are not suggesting the abandonment of Molina in this case. The set of
guidelines in Molina, therefore, stays.
The pronouncement in Kalaw that is closest to relaxation of the guidelines is its
reiteration that the foregoing guidelines have turned out to be rigid, such that their
application to every instance practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity
to the fate of certain rejection. There is no doubt that the Molina Doctrine is strict, but
there is also no doubt that countless petitions have been granted pursuant to its
guidelines.
The Court did not relax the rules when it reconsidered the Kalaw ruling. On the contrary,
the ruling falls under the ambit of the Molina guidelines. The first time the Supreme Court
decided Kalaw in 2011, with Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo as the ponente, the Court
dismissed the petition for insufficiency of evidence. There was no sufficient evidence to
prove the alleged acts of the respondent wife constant mahjong sessions, visits to the
beauty parlor, going out with friends, adultery, and neglect of their children. While it was
shown that the respondent-wife played mahjong (bringing the kids with her), the
petitioner-husband failed to show the FREQUENCY of the mahjong sessions. There is no
proof that the mahjong sessions were so frequent that respondent neglected her family.
In other words, the allegations, which served as the bases or underlying premises of the
conclusions of his experts, were not actually proven.
In 2015, with Justice Lucas Bersamin as ponente, the Supreme Court reconsidered its
earlier decision. The Supreme Court, lest it be misunderstood, explicitly stated that its
not abandoning Molina. The Court, bound by the same set of proven facts, clarified that
the failure to show the frequency of mahjong sessions does not preclude a finding of
psychological incapacity. Its not the FREQUENCY of the mahjong sessions; its the fact
that the respondent-wife should have known that bringing her children along her children
of very tender ages to her mahjong sessions would expose them to a culture of gambling
and other vices that would erode their moral fiber. This, based on the totality of facts in
the case, supports the finding of psychological incapacity. This ruling is very much
consistent with the Molina Doctrine. There is no relaxation of the rules in this respect.
The label that the Court relaxed the rules is most likely derived from the Courts
statement that the rules set forth in Molina are rigid. This is bolstered by the apparent
expression of regret, also reiterated in Kalaw, that in hindsight, it may have been
inappropriate for the Court to impose a rigid set of rules, as the one in Molina, in resolving
all cases of psychological incapacity. In my opinion, and as discussed below, the term
rigid should not be understood along the lines of relaxed as an antonym.
exclusive province of the court, but this does not preclude the expert witness from
expressing a similar opinion, pointing to the exact condition or personality disorder of
the spouse/s.
imputation is fully substantiated with proof. Indeed, psychological incapacity may exist in
one party alone or in both of them, and if psychological incapacity of either or both is
established, the marriage has to be deemed null and void.
As far as remarriage is concerned, it doesnt really matter who between the spouses is
psychologically incapacitated there is absolutely no prohibition for the psychologically
incapacitated spouse to marry again.
Lets consider a number of scenarios. What if, in another case, the husband alleges that
the wife is psychologically incapacitated and the wife simply denies such allegation,
without replying that the husband is the one psychologically incapacitated? What if the
husband alleges that wife is psychologically incapacitated and the wife fails to answer? If,
for one reason or another, evidence shows that there is no basis for finding that the wife
is psychologically incapacitated, but sufficient evidence exists to support a finding of
psychological incapacity on the part of the husband, can the court still declare the
existence of the psychological incapacity, albeit on the part of the husband?
fabrication of evidence. The Court should rather be alarmed by the rising number of
cases involving marital abuse, child abuse, domestic violence and incestuous rape.
construed in favor of the validity of marriage and any deviation from the guidelines,
no matter how reasonable, must lead to the dismissal of the petition. But it should be
remembered that a void marriage enjoys no protection and not entitled to any
presumption of regularity, which means that even if a particular case does not fall
squarely under the Molina principles, the court must still examine the totality of
evidence and must apply other perspectives. This way, diagnosed sociopaths,
schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like will not be allowed to
continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of marriage.