REPUBLIC v. CA (and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA)

G.R. No. 108763, Feb. 13, 1997

FACTS:

Roridel Olaviano Monila and Reylando Molina were legally married and their marriage was blessed with a son. However, after a year when their son was born, Reylando shows signs of immaturity and irresponsible as a husband and a father. Reynaldo spent more time with his friends and become dependent with his parents, and never been honest to his wife financially. The couple engaged in an intense quarrel  which caused Molina went to Bagio and live her family, while Reynaldo relieved from his work and abandoned his wife and their child.

Molina filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina on the ground of psychological incapacity. She contended that Reynaldo had shown that he was psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital obligations and was a highly immature and habitually quarrel some individual. 

In his answer, Reynaldo admitted that he and Roridel could no longer live together as husband and wife, but contended that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels were due to Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as cooking meals, and failure to run the household and handle their finances.

The trial court had declared the marriage of Molina to Reynaldo void ab initio, on the ground of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code.

An appeal was filed to CA, but such was denied, and the CA sustained the lower court’s decision. 

However, the CA’s decision was assailed by the Office of Solicitor General insisting that "the Court of Appeals made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase 'psychological incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the Family Code) and made an incorrect application thereof to the facts of the case," adding that the appealed Decision tended "to establish in effect the most liberal divorce procedure in the world"

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the Court of Appeals made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase 'psychological incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the Family Code) and made an incorrect application thereof to the facts of the case?

COURT'S RULING: 

The petition is meritorious. 

“the psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability."

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:

Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitute 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 (not physical) illness.

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.

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

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.

SO ORDERED.