Labaya, Paolo Bernabe E.
Mendoza v. Republic 7. The RTC held that Dominic showed psychological incapacity and
Month, date, year | Ponencia, J. | Topic
PETITIONERS: Arabelle Mendoza
RESPONDENTS: Republic of the Philippines and Dominic
Mendoza
DOCTRINE/s: The OSG is required to appear as counsel for the state in
the capacity of defensor vinculi to oppose petitions for and to appeal
judgements in favor of declarations of nullity of marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code, thereby ensuring that only the meritorious cases
for the declaration of nullity of marriages based on psychological
incapacity – those sufficiently evidenced by gravity, incurability, and
juridical antecedence – would succeed
FACTS:
1. Arabelle and Dominic, after being intimate and resulting to
pregnancy, got married during Arabelle’s 8 month of pregnancy.
During their marriage, and while Dominic was still in college,
Arabelle took on various jobs to support their child Alyssa.
2. When Dominic finished college, he eventually became a car
salesman. His first paycheck surprisingly went to becoming a
celebratory bash with his co-workers instead of for their family.
Moreover, Arabelle discovered that Dominic had an illicit
relationship with Zaida.
3. During their marriage, Dominic gave Arabelle a car as a birthday
present to which Dominic asked Arabelle to draw 2 blank checks for
a purported payment for the car’s insurance. Later on, she discovered
that the checks were used by Dominic for his personal use. Worse,
she found out that the car was not paid for. This forced her to rely on
Dominic’s father to pay part of the cost of the car, leaving her with a
balance of 120,000
4. Even worse, Dominic was fired from his job for alleged violation of
BP 22 in swindling his clients
5. Dominic then abandoned the conjugal home to think things over. He
attempted to reconcile but she refused. Eventually, she and her
family left as well after Dominic threatened to commit suicide.
6. She filed in the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of her
marriage with Dominic.
that the traits he showed fall squarely with the guidelines set forth in
Republic v CA (Molina). Hence, Arabelle’s petition were granted.
8. The Republic appealed through the OSG
9. The CA reversed the ruling of the RTC and held that the Dominic’s
personality traits either constituted psychological incapacity existing
at the time of the marriage or were of the nature contemplated by
Article 36 of the Family Code. Furthermore, the real reason of the
frequent quarrels was over financial matters and criminal cases
against Dominic
10. One of Arabelle’s contentions was that the Court resolution in
AM 02-11-10 rendered appeals by the OSG as no longer
required, and that the appeal by the OSG was a mere superfluity
that could be deemed to have become functus officio if not totally
disregarded
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether an appeal by the OSG is no longer required under AM 02-
11-10 - NO
RULING: WHEREFORE,the Court DENIES the petition
RATIO:
1. The court agreed with the CA that there was no psychological
incapacity. The court in essence held that for the psychological
incapacity as ground for annulment of marriage to prosper, such
psychological incapacity must exist at the time the inception of the
marriage. The totality of evidence pointing to psychological
incapacity at and prior to the inception of the marriage must be
considered
2. On the matter of the OSG appeal, the SC held that the Resolution
required the OSG to actively participate in all stages of the
proceedings
3. The obvious intent of the resolution was to require the OSG to
appear as counsel for the state in the capacity of defensor vinculi to
oppose petitions for and to appeal judgements in favor of
declarations of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code, thereby ensuring that only the meritorious cases for the
declaration of nullity of marriages based on psychological incapacity
– those sufficiently evidenced by gravity, incurability, and juridical
 Labaya, Paolo Bernabe E.
antecedence – would succeed