AURELIO V.

AURELIO
G.R. No. 175367, [June 06, 2011]

Petitioner: DANILO A. AURELIO

Respondent: VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO

FACTS:

Danilo A. Aurelio and Vida Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on 23 March 1988. They were gifted with two sons:
Danilo Miguel and Danilo Gabriel.

Four years after their marriage, on 9 May 2002, the wife with the RTC of Quezon a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage. In the petition it was alleged that both the petitioner and respondent were suffering from
psychological incapacity in the performance of the essential marital obligations. The wife stated that this state was
present even before and during the time of the marriage ceremony. Putting forward Article 36 of the Family Code,
she prays that their marriage be declared null and void.

On the side of the husband, psychological incapacity manisfested by lack of financial support from him as well as
his lack of drive for his wife. He also was consistently jealous and distrust his wide. His moods were very hostile
and he constantly refused to assist in the maintenance of the family. Moreover, on the side of the wife, her moods
changed quickly from feeling very high in spirits to instantly switching to despair all depending on her day-to-day
experiences. She was emotionally immature that she gets really upset if she cannot get what she wants. With all
these said, their marriage broke down and they both were incapacitated to accept and fulfill the essential obligations
of a marital life.

However, on 8 November 2002, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the said petition of the wife. He argues that
the petition did not state a cause of action and that it did not meet the standards set by the Court for the
implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC denied the petition and the CA affirmed it. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the allegations in the wifes petition are sufficient to declare their marriage null and void
based on psychological incapacity? YES.

HELD:

The petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage observed the requirements in Republic v. CA or better known
as the Molina Doctrine. The root cause of psychological incapacity, juridical antecedence and incurability were all
alleged in the petition.

The petition included the family backgrounds of both spouses and was seen as the root causes of their psychological
incapacity. An expert also affirmed the same as the root causes. Moreover, the illnesses of both spouses were also of
such grave nature to the point that their was a disability for them to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
The respondent suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorver with Narcissistic Features, while the petitioner suffered
from Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder. These disorders are alleged to be grave and incurable. And lastly, the
failure to comply with the essential marital obligations under Article 68 of the Family Code that states the husband
and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support, were all alleged in the petition. Hence, their marriage must be declared null and void.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:
The following are the guidelines to aid the courts in the disposition of cases involving psychological incapacity:
(1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff;
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
a. medically or clinically identified
b. alleged in the complaint
c. sufficiently proven by experts
d. clearly explained in the decision
(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 medically or clinically permanent or incurable;
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage;
(6) 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;
(7) 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;
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel
for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which
will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case
may be, to the petition.