F2019 | Persons and Family Relations | Prof Gaby Concepcion | LLSM

Republic v Molina
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Roridel Olaviano Molina, respondents

Outline : V.G.1.(e) – Marriage and personal relations between spouses; Void marriages; Kinds
of void marriages; Psychological incapacity under FC 36

Doctrine : Psychological incapacity is the utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning

and significance to the marriage. This condition must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated, and must be characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence, and incurability.

Docket No. : G.R. No. 108763

Date : 13 Feb 1997
Ponente : Panganiban, J.
Nature : Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

FACTS
This is a petition for review on certiorari under • In Mar 1987, Roridel resigned from her job
Rule 45 challenging in Manila and went to live with her parents
• the 25 Jan 1993 Decision of the Court of in Baguio City;
Appeals affirming in toto as a whole • A few weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel
o the 14 May 1991 Decision of the and their child, and had since then
Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, abandoned them;
Benguet, which declared the • Reynaldo had thus shown that he was
marriage of respondent Roridel psychologically incapable of complying
Olaviano Molina to Reynaldo with essential marital obligations and was
Molina void ab initio from the beginning, a highly immature and habitually
on the ground of "psychological quarrelsome individual who thought of
incapacity" under Article 36 of the himself as a king to be served; and
Family Code. • It would be to the couple’s best interest to
have their marriage declared null and void
On 16 Aug 1990, respondent Roridel O. Molina in order to free them from what appeared
filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity of to be an incompatible marriage from the
her marriage to Reynaldo Molina, alleging that: start.
• On 14 Apr 1985, Roridel and Reynaldo
were married; In his Answer on 28 Aug 1989, Reynaldo
• A son, Andre O. Molina was born; contended that their frequent quarrels were due
• After a year of marriage, Reynaldo to:
showed signs of “immaturity and • Roridel's strange behavior of insisting on
irresponsibility” as a husband and a father, maintaining her group of friends even after
preferring to spend more time with his their marriage;
friends and squandering his money; • Roridel's refusal to perform some of her
• Reynaldo depended on his parents for aid marital duties such as cooking meals; and
and assistance, and was never honest • Roridel's failure to run the household and
with Roridel in regard to their finances, handle their finances.
resulting in frequent quarrels between
them; During the pre-trial on 17 Oct 1990, the following
• In Feb 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of his were stipulated:
job in Manila, and since then Roridel had • The parties are separated-in-fact for more
been the sole breadwinner of the family; than three years;
• In Oct 1986, the couple had a very intense • The petitioner is not asking support for her
quarrel, as a result of which their and her child;
relationship was estranged; • The respondent is not asking for
damages;

1
 F2019 | Persons and Family Relations | Prof Gaby Concepcion | LLSM

• The common child of the parties is in the Hidalgo-Sison, a psychiatrist of the Baguio
custody of the petitioner wife. General Hospital and Medical Center.

Evidence for respondent wife Roridel consisted of Reynaldo did not present any evidence as he
her own testimony and that of her friends as well appeared only during the pre- trial conference.
as of a social worker, and of Dr. Teresita

ISSUE
Are the Molina couple’s “opposing and conflicting personalities” equivalent to psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family Code? – No. The marriage subsists and is valid.

RATIO
Leouel Santos v Court of Appeals – The
Supreme Court ruled that psychological (2) The root cause of the psychological
incapacity should refer to a mental, not physical, incapacity must be:
incapacity. The meaning of 'psychological (a) Medically or clinically identified,
incapacity' is confined to the most serious cases (b) Alleged in the complaint,
of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of (c) Sufficiently proven by experts,
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
and significance to the marriage. This condition (d) Clearly explained in the
must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated, decision.
and must be characterized by:
• (a) Gravity, (3) The incapacity must be proven to be
• (b) Juridical antecedence, and existing at "the time of the celebration" of
• (c) Incurability. the marriage.

Application – The psychological defect in the (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to
present case is not incapacity, but more a be medically or clinically permanent or
"difficulty”, “refusal”, or “neglect" in the incurable.
performance of marital obligations. "Irreconcilable
differences" and "conflicting personalities" do not (5) Such illness must be grave enough to
constitute psychological incapacity. It is not bring about the disability of the party to
enough to prove that the parties failed to meet assume the essential obligations of
their responsibilities and duties as married marriage.
persons; they must be incapable of doing so, due
to some psychological, not physical, illness. (6) The essential marital obligations must
be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71
There had been no showing of the gravity of the of the Family Code as regards the
problem, its juridical antecedence, or its husband and wife as well as Articles 220,
incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard
showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only to parents and their children. Such
incompatibility, not psychological incapacity. non-complied marital obligation(s) must
also be stated in the petition, proven by
Reynaldo’s alleged personality traits were not evidence and included in the text of the
constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at decision.
the time of marriage celebration.
(7) Interpretations given by the National
Guidelines in interpretating and applying Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
Article 36 of the Family Code – The following Catholic Church in the Philippines, while
guidelines are handed down for the guidance of not controlling or decisive, should be given
the bench and the bar. great respect by our courts.

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity (8) The trial court must order the
of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for

2
 F2019 | Persons and Family Relations | Prof Gaby Concepcion | LLSM

the state. No decision shall be handed Solicitor General, along with the
down unless the Solicitor General issues a prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the
certification, which will be quoted in the court such certification within fifteen (15)
decision, briefly staring therein his days from the date the case is deemed
reasons for his agreement or opposition, submitted for resolution of the court.
as the case may be, to the petition. The

DECISION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.

15-0 granting the petition.

Concur (8) – Narvasa (C.J.), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., and
Torres, Jr., JJ.
Concur in the result (3) – Regalado, Kapunan, and Mendoza, JJ.
Separate concurring statement/opinion (3) – Padilla, Romero, and Vitug, JJ.

NOTES
DETAILS ON GUIDELINES effect. Here, the State and the Church — while remaining independent, separate
and apart from each other — shall walk together in synodal cadence towards the
1. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family as the inviolable
marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. base of the nation.
Both the Constitution and the laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the
family. Art. 11 of Constitution on the Family, 11 recognizes it "as the foundation of 8. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor
the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be
"protected" by the state. The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on
marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and E.O. NO. 209 THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
solidarity.
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
2. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
— not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after
evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or its solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order 227)
physically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations
he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. (109a)
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis of the same kind,
nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement,
incapacitating nature explained. Expert evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist the court shall decide.
and clinical psychologists. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live
abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However,
3. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the
their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, family. (110a)
but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The
4. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the
spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their
such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not separate properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income or fruits,
necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate properties. (111a)
employment in a job.
Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and the duty of both
Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and spouses. The expenses for such management shall be paid in accordance with the
prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to provisions of Article 70. (115a)
procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of
marriage. Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the
respect to their unemancipated children on wards the following rights and duties:
5. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional (1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right
outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their
downright incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. means;
In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an (2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and
adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the understanding;
person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to (3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty,
marriage. integrity, self- discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in
civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;
7. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from (4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their
Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company,
which provides: and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and
morals;
“The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to (5) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature.” (6) To demand from them respect and obedience;
(7) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and
Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize (8) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and
our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve guardians. (316a)
such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decision of such
appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on evidence — what is decreed as Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly
canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void. liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority
This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the Family subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. (2180(2)a and (4)a )
Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given persuasive

3
 F2019 | Persons and Family Relations | Prof Gaby Concepcion | LLSM

Art. 225. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the A verified petition for approval of the bond shall be filed in the proper court of the
property of the unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court place where the child resides, or, if the child resides in a foreign country, in the
appointment. In case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless proper court of the place where the property or any part thereof is situated.
there is a judicial order to the contrary. The petition shall be docketed as a summary special proceeding in which all
Where the market value of the property or the annual income of the child exceeds incidents and issues regarding the performance of the obligations referred to in the
P50,000, the parent concerned shall be required to furnish a bond in such amount second paragraph of this Article shall be heard and resolved.
as the court may determine, but not less than ten per centum (10%) of the value of The ordinary rules on guardianship shall be merely suppletory except when the child
the property or annual income, to guarantee the performance of the obligations is under substitute parental authority, or the guardian is a stranger, or a parent has
prescribed for general guardians. remarried, in which case the ordinary rules on guardianship shall apply. (320a)