Você está na página 1de 2

268 SCRA 198, February 13, 1997, J.

Panganiban
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On April 14, 1985,plaintiff Roridel O. Molina married Reynaldo Molina which union bore a son.
After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband
and father as he preferred to spend more time with his friends, depended on his parents for
assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances resulting in frequent
quarrels between them. The RTC granted Roridel petition for declaration of nullity of her
marriage which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE:
Do irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities constitute psychological incapacity?
RULING:
There is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to
be more of adifficulty, 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. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet
their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown
to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness.
The evidence merely adduce that Roridel and her husband could not get along with each other.
There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem, neither its juridical antecedence nor
its incurability.
The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code of
the Philippines are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
1. 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.
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 and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.
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.
Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse not
necessarily absolutely against every one of the same sex.
5. 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.
6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husbad and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents adn 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.
It is clear that Article36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of
the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and Solicitor General to appear
as counsel of 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.