epublic vs CA and Molina

Republic vs. CA and Molina

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997
FACTS:
The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the
respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of
psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo
manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and a father
preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered his money,
depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with his
wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and
as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to
live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left
her and their child. Since then he abandoned them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological
incapacity.
HELD:
The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What
constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable
differences and confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties
must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital
responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldos action
at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would
comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel
merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and
had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its
incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable
psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as
psychological incapacity.

The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity

laid set forth in this case:
burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff

root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined

such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage

such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying

with the essentials of marital obligations of marriage

such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221
and 225 of the Family Code

decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic

Church must be respected

court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to
act on behalf of the state.