Batchnumber:1,Casenumber:16,Preparedby:EuniceMayeRuiz

Antoniov.Reyes
GR No. 155800 - - 03/10/2006

FACTS:
AntonioandReyesgotmarriedattheManilaCityHallandlateron,atachurchweddingatSta.
RosadeLimaParish,BagongIlog,PasigCity.
Antonio(petitioner)filedapetitiontohavehismarriagetoReyes(respondent)nulland
voidonthegroundsofpsychologicalincapacityoftherespondenttofulfillhermaritalobligations.
Heassertsthattherespondentsincapacityhasexistedatthetimeoftheirmarriageandstillis
subsistentuptothepresent.Petitionercontendsthathiswifeisapathologicalliarwholiedabout
thedetailsofherself,thepeoplearoundherandevenhercareer.Therespondentsstancewas
thatthetotalityofevidencepresentedbythepetitionerwasnotsufficientforafindingof
psychologicalincapacityonherpart.
Thepetitionerpresentedonepsychiatristandoneclinicalpsychologisttothecourt,who
statedthatbasedontheteststhattheyhaveconducted,thepetitionerwasessentiallynormal,
introspective,shyandaconservativepersonbutherconsistentlyingtothepetitionerwas
abnormalorpathological.Itunderminedthebasicrelationshipthatshouldbebasedonlove,
TRUST,andrespect.
ThetrialcourthasruledinfavorofthepetitionerbuttheCourtofAppealshasreversed
therulingofthelowercourtonthebasisthatthepetitionersallegationswerenotsufficientto
considertheirmarriagenullandvoid.

ISSUE:
WoNthefactsstatedbythepetitionersufficientlymeetsthestandardsetforthedeclarationof
nullityofmarriagebasedonArticle36oftheFamilyCodeandgenerallytheMolinaguidelines.

HELD:
Yes.ThefollowingaretheestablishedguidelinesintheMolinacasewhichispresentlyrecognized
inthejudicialdispositionsofpetitionsfornullityunderArticle36oftheFamilyCode;
1.Theburdenofprooftoshowthenullityofthemarriagebelongstotheplaintiff.
Petitionerhassufficientlyovercomehisburdeninprovingthepsychologicalincapacityof
therespondent.Apartfromhisowntestimony,hehaspresentedwitnesseswhocorroboratedhis
allegationsagainsthiswife.Healsopresented2expertwitnessesfromthefieldofpsychologywho
testifiedthattheaberrantbehavioroftherespondentwastantamounttopsychological
incapacity.

2.Therootcauseofthepsychologicalincapacitymustbe:(a)medicallyorclinically
identified,(b)allegedinthecomplaint,(c)sufficientlyprovenbyexpertsand(d)clearlyexplained
inthedecision.
Theinitiatorycomplaintallegedthattherespondent,fromthebeginning,hadexhibited
unusualandabnormalbehaviorofperenniallytellinglies.Therespondentalsopresented2
witnessesfromthepsychologicalfieldtotestifythattherespondent,throughherparanoid
jealousyandpathologicallyingispsychologicallyincapacitatedinfulfillinghermaritalobligations.

3.Theincapacitymustbeproventobeexistingat"thetimeofthecelebration"ofthe
marriage.
Respondentspsychologicalincapacitywasclearlyestablishedtohaveexistedbeforetheir
marriagethroughherconstantliesaboutherfriends,andevenkeepingthepetitionerinthedark
abouthernaturalchildsparentagesayingthatthechildwasheradoptedsonwheninfactitwas
herownchildfromanotherman.

4.Suchincapacitymustalsobeshowntobemedicallyorclinicallypermanentorincurable.
Sincethisrequirementwasnotyetestablishedduringthependencyofthecaseatbar,it
wasunderstandablethattheexpertwitnessespresentedbythepetitionerwassilentregarding
thepermanenceorincurabilityoftherespondentspsychologicalincapacity.

5.TheessentialmaritalobligationsmustbethoseembracedbyArticles68upto71ofthe
FamilyCodeasregardsthehusbandandwifeaswellasArticles220,221and225ofthesame
Codeinregardtoparentsandtheirchildren.Suchnon-compliedmaritalobligation(s)mustalsobe
statedinthepetition,provenbyevidenceandincludedinthetextofthedecision.

InArticle68,spousesaretolivetogether,observemutuallove,respectandfidelityand
rendermutualhelpandsupport.Now,howcanapathologicalliarbeabletocommittothebasic
tenetsofarelationshipbetweenspousesbasedonlove,trustandrespect?

6.InterpretationsgivenbytheNationalAppellateMatrimonialTribunalofthe
CatholicChurchinthePhilippines,whilenotcontrollingordecisive,shouldbegivengreatrespect
byourcourts.
TheNationalAppellateMatrimonialTribunalandtheRomanRotaoftheVaticanhas
alreadydeclaredthemarriagebetweenpetitionerandrespondentnullandvoid.TheCAerredin
notconsideringthisdecision.Theirdecisionsholdweightsincetheyaredrawnfromthesame
factspresentedbythepetitionertothetrialcourt.Iftheappellatecourtaffirmedthedecisionof
thetrialcourt,therulingsoftheCatholicChurchwouldnotholdanypersuasivevalue.
7.Suchillnessmustbegraveenoughtobringaboutthedisabilityofthepartytoassume
theessentialobligationsofmarriage.
Itshouldbenotedthatinwhateversuchcircumstancesspeaksofthedegreeoftolerance
ofthepetitionerbeforehedecidedtoleavehiswife,itlikewisesupportsthebeliefthat
respondent'spsychologicalincapacity,asbornebytherecord,wassograveinextentthatany
prolongedmaritallifewasdubitable.Apersonwhocannotdistinguishfantasyandrealitywould
similarlybeunabletocomprehendthelegalnatureofamaritalbond.