Republic v.

Olaviano Molina

Facts:
1) Petition for review on certiorari under the Rule 45 challenging the January 25, 1993 decision of CA affirming in toto the May 14, 1991
decision of the RTC of La Trinidad Benguet which declared the marriage of respondent Roridel Olaviano Molina to Reynaldo Molina void ab
initio on the ground of ―psychological capacity under Article 36 of the Family Code
2) Case filed August 16, 1990 (nullity of marriage)
3) April 14, 1985: marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo, san Agustin Church
4) Son: Andre Molina
5) After a year of marriage:
- Showed signs of immaturity
- Preferred to stay with peers and friends squandering his money
- Depended on parents for aid and assistance
- Never honest with wife about finances

6) February 1986: relieved from work

7) October 1986: intense quarrel
8) March 1987: Roridel resigned from job in Manila and went to live with parents in Baguio City
9) Few weeks later: Reynaldo left Roridel and their child and abandoned them
10) Reynaldo psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital obligations

REYNALDO‘s CLAIMS
1) Filed August 28, 1989: contended that misunderstandings were due to:
a) Roridels‘s strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her friends even after marriage
b) Her refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as cooking meals
c) Roridel‘s failure to run the household and handle their finances

THE FOLLOWING WERE STIPULATED:

1) Petitioner is not asking for support for her child and her
2) Respondent is not asking for damages
3) Parties are separated in fact for three years
4) Common child of the parties is in custody of the petitioner‘s wife

WIFE‘s WITNESSES: Friends: Rosemarie Ventura and Maria Leonora Padilla; Ruth Lalas a social worker and Dr. Teresita Hidalgo-Sison
(psychiatrist of BGH)

TRIAL COURT‘S DECISION: May 14, 1991: declaring marriage null and void

CA: denied appeal of petitioner and affirmed in toto the RTC‘ decision

SOLICITOR GENERAL: insists that the CA made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase ―psychological incapacity. He said
that appealed decision tended to establish in effect the most liberal divorce procedure in the world

- Solicitor‘s appeal was denied—RTC relying on the fact that marriage between parties broke up because of their opposing and conflicting
personalities.

- SG argued that ―opposing and conflicting personalities is not equivalent to psychological capacity

- PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: is not simply neglect by the parties to the marriage of their responsibilities and duties but a defect in their
psychological nature which renders them incapable of performing such marital responsibilities and duties

SC RULING: Petition is meritorious

REASONS:
1) Justice Vitug: psychological incapacity refers to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage; this condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated

2) It should be characterized by: a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence and c) incurability

3) In the present case:

- There is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity—but merely a ―difficulty‖ if not outright ―refusal‖ or
―neglect‖ in the performance of some marital obligations
- Mere showing of irreconcible differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity
- It is essential to show that the parties are incapable of meeting their marital responsibilities and not mere failure
- No gravity in the problem, neither juridical antecedence nor incurability

4) Court invited two amici curiae (Most rev Oscar Cruz and Justice Ricardo Puno: their guidance:
a) The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff- any doubt should be resolved in -- favor of the validity and
continuation of the marriage—permanence, solidarity and inviolability of marriage
b) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be 1) medically or clinically identified; 2) alleged in the complaint; 3) sufficiently proven
by experts and 4) clearly explained in the decision—the evidence must convince the court that the parties or one of them, was mentally or
psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming or knowing them, could not have given
valid assumption thereof.
c) The incapacity must be proven existing during the time of the celebration of the marriage
d) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable—incapacity must be relevant to assumption of
marriage obligations not necessarily those not related to marriage like exercise of profession
e) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage- illness must be
shown as downright incapacity or inability and not a refusal, neglect or difficulty much less ill will
f) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Arts 68-71 of family code (to husband and wife) and ARTs 220, 221 and 225
(parents and their children)
g) 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—Art 36 taken from the Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law (1983)- what is
decreed to be canonically void be also civilly void
h) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor general to appear as counsel for the state
DECISION OF SC: petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel Olaviano and
Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.

SEPARATE STATEMENT:
PADILLA, J
Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts—the
facts in this case does not support conclusion of psychological incapacity

SEPARATE OPINION
ROMERO, J.
Not mere refusal and neglect or difficulty
Neither should the incapacity be the result of mental illness. For if it were due to insanity or defects in the mental faculties short of insanity,
there is the resultant defect of vice of consent, thus rendering the marriage annullable (Art 45 family Code)
Psychological incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to do with consent, it refers to obligations attendant to marriage
Psychological incapacity is insanity of a lesser degree
Remedy was to allow the afflicted spouse to remarry
Bases for determining void marriages:
a) Lack of one or more of the essential requisites of marriage as contract
b) Reasons of public policy
c) Special cases and special situations (includes psychological incapacity)
Canon Law- valid and void marriage only
In the case ―conflicting and opposing personalities of the spouses were not considered equivalent to psychological incapacity
Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity (Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA)
Concurs that this marriage remains subsisting and valid

CONCURRING OPINION
VITUG, J.
Should give much value to Canon Law jurisprudence as an aid to the interpretation and construction of the statutory enactment
Marriage void ab initio, Art 45- merely voidable, Art 55- legal separation
The term psychological incapacity to be ground for the nullity of the marriage under Art 36 of the FC must pass the following tests:
a) Incapacity must be psychological or mental not physical in nature
b) Psychological incapacity must relate to the inability, not mere refusal to understand, assume and discharge the basic marital obligations of
living together, observing love and respect
and fidelity and rendering mutual help and support
c) Psychology condition must exist at the time the marriage is contracted although its overt manifestations may occur only thereafter and
d) The mental disorder must be grave or serious and incurable
Section 2 Art. XV (marriage as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State) , Section 12,
Art II ( The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution),
Section 1, Article XV ( The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity
and actively promote its total development) of the Constitution show how the state regard marriage and the family