Republic vs Court of Appeals and Molina

February 13,1997

Facts:
Reynaldo Molina and Roridel Olaviano were married on April 14,1985.
After a year of marriage, Reyanldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility
as husband and father. He preferred to spend more time with his friends with
whom he squandered his money. He would depend on his parents for assistance.
Also he was never honest with his wife with regard to their finances.

In February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved from his job. Since then, Roridel
had been the sole breadwinner of the family. In March 1987, Roridel resigned from
her job and went to live with her parents in Baguio City. A few weeks later,
Reynaldo left Roridel and their child and since then abandoned them. Roridel filed
a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. The
trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void. The appeal of the
Republic was denied by the CA, hence, this present recourse.

Issue:
Whether or not conflicting and opposing personalities constitute
psychological incapacity.

Held:
In the present case, there is no clear showing that the psychological defect
spoken of is an incapacity. It 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 following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of

the FC are 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,
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 Art 68 to 71
of the FC regards the husband and wife as well as Art 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
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor general to appear as counsel of the state.
Based on the foregoing, the marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo
Molina is hereby declared as subsisting and remained valid.