268 SCRA 198, February 13, 1997, J. PanganibanFACTS OF THE CASE:On April 14, 198 5,plaintiff Roridel O.

Molina married Reynaldo Molina which union bore a son. Af ter a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband and father as he preferred tospend more time with his friends, dep ended on his parents for assistance, and was never honest with his wife inregard to their finances resulting in frequent quarrels between them. The RTC granted Roridel petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage which was affirmed b y the CA.ISSUE:Do irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities const itute psychological incapacity?RULING:There is no clear showing that the psychol ogical defect spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to be more of adifficulty, if not outright refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations.Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise cons titutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties fai led to meet their responsibilities and dutiesas 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 merely adduce that Roridel and her husband c ould not get along with each other. There had beenno showing of the gravity of t he problem, neither its juridical antecendence nor its incurability.The followin g guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family C ode of thePhilippines are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and t he bar:1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolvedin favor of the existence and continuati on 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 inthe complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly exp lained in the decision. Article 36 of theFamily Code requires that the incapacit y must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestationsand/or sympto ms may be physical.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 medi cally or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurabilitymay be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse not necessarily absolutely agai nst everyoneof the same sex.5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disablity of the party to assume the essential obligationsof marriage. Thus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbur sts cannot be accepted as root causes.6. The essential marital obligations must b e those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code asregards the husbad and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to par ents adn their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be st ated in the petition, proven by evidence andincluded in the text of the decision .7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Churh in thePhilippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be g iven great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article36 was taken by the Fa mily Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law,which became effective in 1983.8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and Solicitor General to appear as counsel of thestate. No decision sh all be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which wi ll be quotedin the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreeme nt or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition