This is Landmark Case
which defines the requirements for grounds of annulment due to
psychological incapacity. It was a time where “psychological incapacity” was
used liberally by lawyers and judges alike in tackling a case of annulment.
This case became a reference for the people of the bar in cases where
psychological incapacity is raised.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs Court of
Appeals and Roridel Olaviano Molina
G.R. No. 108763, Feb. 13, 1997
This is a petition for
review on certiorari by the Solicitor General assailing the January 25, 1993
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 34858 which affirmed the
May 14, 1991 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet,
declaring the respondent Roridel Olaviano Molina and Reynaldo Molina’s marriage
as void ab initio, on the ground of “psychological incapacity” under Article 36
of the Family Code.
FACTS:
Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina on 14 April
1985 in Manila, and gave birth to a son a year after. Reynaldo showed signs of
“immaturity and irresponsibility” on the early stages of the marriage, observed
from his tendency to spend time with his friends and squandering his money with
them, from his dependency from his parents, and his dishonesty on matters
involving his finances. Reynaldo was relieved of his job in 1986, Roridel
became the sole breadwinner thereafter. In March 1987, Roridel resigned from
her job in Manila and proceeded to Baguio City. Reynaldo left her and their
child a week later. The couple is separated-in-fact for more than three years.
On 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a verified petition for
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. Evidence for Roridel
consisted of her own testimony, that of two of her friends, a social worker,
and a psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. Reynaldo
did not present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial
conference. On 14 May 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the
marriage void. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals denied the appeals and affirmed in toto the RTC’s decision.
Hence, the present recourse.
ISSUE: Whether
opposing or conflicting personalities should be construed as psychological
incapacity
HELD:
The Court of Appeals erred in its opinion the Civil Code
Revision Committee intended to liberalize the application of Philippine civil
laws on personal and family rights, and holding psychological incapacity as a
broad range of mental and behavioral conduct on the part of one spouse
indicative of how he or she regards the marital union, his or her personal
relationship with the other spouse, as well as his or her conduct in the long haul
for the attainment of the principal objectives of marriage; where said conduct,
observed and considered as a whole, tends to cause the union to self-destruct
because it defeats the very objectives of marriage, warrants the dissolution of
the marriage.
The Court reiterated its ruling in Santos v. Court of
Appeals, where psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental
(not physical) incapacity, existing at the time the marriage is celebrated, and
that there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to
confine the meaning of ‘psychological incapacity’ to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Psychological
incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability. In the present case, there is no clear showing to us that the
psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity; but 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 Court, in this case, promulgated the guidelines in the interpretation
and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, removing any visages of it
being the most liberal divorce procedure in the world: (1) The burden of proof
belongs to the plaintiff; (2) the root cause of psychological incapacity must
be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently
proven by expert, and clearly explained in the decision; (3) The incapacity
must be proven existing at the time of the celebration of marriage; (4) the
incapacity must be clinically or medically permanent or incurable; (5) such
illness must be grave enough; (6) the essential marital obligation must be
embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as regards husband and wife,
and Articles 220 to 225 of the same code as regards parents and their children;
(7) interpretation made by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
Catholic Church, and (8) the trial must order the fiscal and the
Solicitor-General to appeal as counsels for the State.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, and reversed and set
aside the assailed decision; concluding that the marriage of Roridel Olaviano
to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.