Case Digest

Republic Vs. CA & Roridel O. Molina

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997
Supreme Court Decision
Civil Law : Psychological Incapacity 

 

The Parties

• Petitioner–Republic / OSG
• Respondent –CA & Roridel O. Molina

 Procedural History

• This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the January 25, 1993 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 34858 affirming in the May 14, 1991 decision of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, which declared the marriage of respondent Roridel O. Molina to Reynaldo Molina void ab initio, on the ground of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code.

 The Facts

• This case was commenced on August 16, 1990 with the filing by respondent Roridel O. Molina of a verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. Essentially, the petition alleged that Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church 4 in Manila; that a son, Andre O. Molina was born; that after a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father since he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends on whom he squandered his money;
  
• During the pre-trial on October 17, 1990, the following were stipulated:
        That the parties herein were legally married on April 14, 1985 at the Church of St.Augustine, Manila;
         That out of their marriage, a child named Albert Andre Olaviano Molina was born on July 29, 1986;
          That the parties are separated-in-fact for more than three years;
          That petitioner is not asking support for her and her child;
          That the respondent is not asking for damages;
          That the common child of the parties is in the custody of the petitioner wife.

• On May 14, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void. The appeal of petitioner was denied by the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the RTC's decision. Hence, the present recourse.

• In denying the Solicitor General's appeal, the respondent Court relied 5 heavily on the trial court's findings "that the marriage between the parties broke up because of their opposing and conflicting personalities." Then, it added its own opinion that "the Civil Code Revision Committee (hereinafter referred to as Committee) intended to liberalize the application of our civil laws on personal and family rights. . . ." It concluded that: As ground for annulment of marriage, We view psychologically 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. If said conduct, observed and considered as a whole, tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it defeats the very objectives of marriage, then there is enough reason to leave the spouses to their individual fates.
• The petitioner, on the other hand, argues that "opposing and conflicting personalities" is not equivalent to psychological incapacity, explaining that such ground "is not simply the neglect by the parties to the marriage of their responsibilities and duties, but a defect in their psychological nature which renders them incapable of performing such marital responsibilities and duties.

The Issue

• Whether or not the opposing and conflicting relationship between the couple constitutes a Psychological Incapacity?
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals in affirming the trial court’s judgment is within the standards required by Art. 36 or Psychological Incapacity? And thus CA’s affirmation is correct?

   The Holding

• No, the Supreme Court granted the petition and  the marriage is valid, In Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals this Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, ruled that "psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (nor physical) incapacity . . . and that (t)here 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. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
• Citing Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, 7 Justice Vitug wrote that "the psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability." 
• In the present case, there is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of "irreconciliable differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical) illness. 
• The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband couldnor get along with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility, not psychological incapacity.

 Court's Reasoning

• The Court decided to invite two amici curiae, namely, the Most Reverend Oscar V. Cruz, 9 Vicar Judicial (Presiding Judge) of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, and Justice Ricardo C. Puno, 10 a member of the Family Code Revision Committee. ,the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
• (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
  (a) medically or clinically identified,
  (b) alleged in the complaint,
  (c) sufficiently proven by experts and
  (d) clearly explained in the decision.
• (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
• (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.
• (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.
• (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.Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
• (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.It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:
  The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
  Those who are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature. 
• (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.No decision shall he handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly staring therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensorvinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.