Republic vs. CA a.k.a.

the Molina case (February 13, 1997)

Facts:
A filed verified petition for declaration of nullity of marriage to B. Alleged manifestations of B’s
psychological incapacity: He showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband and father. He
preferred to spend more time with peers and he squandered his money on them. He depended on his
parents for aid and was never honest with his wife as to finances. He eventually abandoned his wife and
child.
Issue:
(1) Is B psychologically incapacitated for marriage?
(2) What are standard guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code for
the guidance of the bench and the bar?
Ruling:
(1) 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. 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.
The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not 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.
(2) Molina guidelines:
1st. The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to plaintiff.
2nd. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the compll..aint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts, and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
3rd. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
4th. Such must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
5th. Such must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage.
6th. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the FC (husband
and wife relationship), and Articles 220, 221, and 225 (parent and child relationship).
7th. 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.
8th. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the state. [The Molina case provided for an additional requirement that the SolGen issue a
certification stating his reasons for his agreement or opposition to the petition. This requirement was
dispensed with following the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment
of Voidable Marriages. Still, Article 48 of the Family Code mandates that the appearance of the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned be on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between
the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.]