Republic vs.

Melgar

G.R. No. 139676

March 31, 2006

Appellant: Republic of the Philippines

Appellee: Norma Cuison-Melgar (herein Petitioner)
VOID MARRIAGE: ART 36
Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.
Facts:
-

March 27, 1965 Marriage of petitioner to Eulogio Melgar

Since birth of their first born, Eulogio manifested habitual alcoholism, immaturity, unbearable
jealousy (over her male co-workers), constitutional laziness (him not looking for a job and
leaving the petitioner to deal with all expenses), and maltreatment of petitioner.
December 27, 1985 Eulogio was forcibly thrown out of the house by petitioners brothers. Was
not heard of since.
August 19, 1996 Petitioner filed for declaration of nullity of marriage on the grounds of
Eulogios psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations.
Summons to the Court were sent to the latter, but he did not respond.
RTC rendered the marriage null and void.
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an appeal and said that the evidence of petitioner was
insufficient under Art 36 of the Family Code.
CA upheld RTCs decision.
OSG petitioned to SC for certiorari of the decision of CA.

Issue: WoN the petitioners evidence was enough to rule her marriage null and void under Art. 36 of FC.
Held: No;
-

Petitioner failed to establish that at the time of her marriage with Eulogio, the latter was already
suffering from a mental disorder; in fact, it was stated that her marriage woes started only after
the birth of their firstborn.
Petitioner also failed to establish or insufficiently proved that Eulogio had a personality disorder
that made him unable to discharge essential marital obligations. The Court stressed that the
incapacity has to be from a psychological disease, and that, although considered not to be sine
qua non, the petitioner failed to render expert testimonies to support her claim of her husbands
mental incapacity (it weakened her case.)

Notes:
-

In lieu of Article 48, the Court pointed out the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal, and the
OSG as counsel for the State in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of
marriages. With the case presented, the Court said that the State [was not active] in the
prosecution at the trial level, and that only through the active participation of the Public
Prosecutor or the OSG will the interest of the State be represented and protected in proceedings
for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages.., with the State having a vital interest on
the protection and stability of the family.

Art. 48: In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall
order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the state to take steps
to prevent collusion between parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a
stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.
In Republic v. Molina, the Court handed down the guidelines* to the interpretation of Art. 36:
The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against
its dissolution and nullity. The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage
and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
explained in the decision. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and
clinical psychologists.
The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the
marriage. The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the
illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage
obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a
profession or employment in a job.
Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness
must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
much less ill will.
The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital
obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the
text of the decision.
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.
(*This is only the shortened version of the guideline. For the full one, please refer to the
case.)

- Court also said that for the case, Legal Separation would be more applicable.