Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Family Code of the Philippines provides an entirely new ground (in

present case, finds the need to lay down specific guidelines in the

addition to those enumerated in the Civil Code) to assail the validity of a

interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code.

marriage, namely, "psychological incapacity." Since the Code's effectivity,

our courts have been swamped with various petitions to declare

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenging

marriages void based on this ground. Although this Court had interpreted

the January 25, 1993 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals 2 in CA-G.R. CV No.

the meaning of psychological incapacity in the recent case of Santos

34858 affirming in toto the May 14, 1991 decision of the Regional Trial Court

vs. Court of Appeals, still many judges and lawyers find difficulty in
applying said novel provision in specific cases. In the present case and in
the context of the herein assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, the
Solicitor General has labelled exaggerated to be sure but nonetheless

of La Trinidad, 3 Benguet, which declared the marriage of respondent Roridel

Olaviano Molina to Reynaldo Molina void ab initio, on the ground of
"psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The Facts

expressive of his frustration Article 36 as the "most liberal divorce

procedure in the world." Hence, this Court in addition to resolving the

This case was commenced on August 16, 1990 with the filing by
respondent Roridel O. Molina of a verified petition for declaration of nullity

of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. Essentially, the petition alleged that

1. That the parties herein were legally married on April 14,

Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin

1985 at the Church of St. Augustine, Manila;

Church in Manila; that a son, Andre O. Molina was born; that after a year of
4

marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a

2. That out of their marriage, a child named Albert Andre

husband and a father since he preferred to spend more time with his peers

Olaviano Molina was born on July 29, 1986;

and friends on whom he squandered his money; that he depended on his

parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard

3. That the parties are separated-in-fact for more than

to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between them; that sometime

three years;

in February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of his job in Manila, and since then

4. That petitioner is not asking support for her and her

Roridel had been the sole breadwinner of the family; that in October 1986 the

child;

couple had a very intense quarrel, as a result of which their relationship was
estranged; that in March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and

5. That the respondent is not asking for damages;

went to live with her parents in Baguio City; that a few weeks later, Reynaldo
left Roridel and their child, and had since then abandoned them; that

6. That the common child of the parties is in the custody

Reynaldo had thus shown that he was psychologically incapable of

of the petitioner wife.

complying with essential marital obligations and was a highly immature and
habitually quarrel some individual who thought of himself as a king to be
served; and that it would be to the couple's best interest to have their
marriage declared null and void in order to free them from what appeared to
be an incompatible marriage from the start.

Evidence for herein respondent wife consisted of her own testimony and
that of her friends Rosemarie Ventura and Maria Leonora Padilla as well
as of Ruth G. Lalas, a social worker, and of Dr. Teresita Hidalgo-Sison, a
psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. She also

In his Answer filed on August 28, 1989, Reynaldo admitted that he and

submitted documents marked as Exhibits "A" to "E-1." Reynaldo did not

Roridel could no longer live together as husband and wife, but contended

present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial

that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels were due to (1)

conference.

Roridel's strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends

even after their marriage; (2) Roridel's refusal to perform some of her
marital duties such as cooking meals; and (3) Roridel's failure to run the
household and handle their finances.
During the pre-trial on October 17, 1990, the following were stipulated:

On May 14, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the
marriage void. The appeal of petitioner was denied by the Court of
Appeals which affirmed in toto the RTC's decision. Hence, the present
recourse.
The Issue

In his petition, the Solicitor General insists that "the Court of Appeals

Respondent, in her Memorandum, adopts these discussions of the Court

made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase

of Appeals.

'psychological incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the Family Code)

and made an incorrect application thereof to the facts of the case,"

The petitioner, on the other hand, argues that "opposing and conflicting

adding that the appealed Decision tended "to establish in effect the most

personalities" is not equivalent to psychological incapacity, explaining that

liberal divorce procedure in the world which is anathema to our culture."

such ground "is not simply the neglect by the parties to the marriage of
their responsibilities and duties, but a defect in their psychological nature

In denying the Solicitor General's appeal, the respondent Court

which renders them incapable of performing such marital responsibilities

relied heavily on the trial court's findings "that the marriage between the

and duties."

parties broke up because of their opposing and conflicting personalities."

Then, it added it sown opinion that "the Civil Code Revision Committee

The Court's Ruling

(hereinafter referred to as Committee) intended to liberalize the application of

The petition is meritorious.

our civil laws on personal and family rights. . . ." It concluded that:

We view

In Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals 6 this Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice

psychologically incapacity as a broad range of mental and

Jose C. Vitug, ruled that "psychological incapacity should refer to no less

As

ground

for

annulment

of

marriage,

behavioral conduct on the part of one spouse indicative of

how he or she regards the marital union, his or her
personal relationship with the other spouse, as well as his
or her conduct in the long haul for the attainment of the
principal objectives of marriage. If said conduct, observed
and considered as a whole, tends to cause the union to
self-destruct because it defeats the very objectives of
marriage, then there is enough reason to leave the

than a mental (nor physical) incapacity . . . and that (t)here is hardly any
doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
'psychological incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time
the marriage is celebrated." Citing Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former presiding
judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of
Manila, 7 Justice Vitug wrote that "the psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability."

spouses to their individual fates.

On the other hand, in the present case, there is no clear showing to us
In the case at bar, We find that the trial judge committed

that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to us

no indiscretion in analyzing and deciding the instant case,

to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the

as it did, hence, We find no cogent reason to disturb the

performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of "irreconciliable

findings and conclusions thus made.

differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes

psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed

A Yes, Your Honor.

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

Q Neither are they psychologically unfit for

psychological (nor physical) illness.

their professions?

The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her

A Yes, Your Honor.

husband could nor get along with each other. There had been no showing

The Court has no more

of the gravity of the problem; neither its juridical antecedence nor its

questions.

incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison showed no incurable

psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility, not psychological incapacity.
Dr. Sison testified: 8

In the case of Reynaldo, there is no showing that his alleged personality

traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the time of

COURT

marriage celebration. While some effort was made to prove that there
was a failure to fulfill pre-nuptial impressions of "thoughtfulness and

Q It is therefore the recommendation of

gentleness" on Reynaldo's part of being "conservative, homely and

the psychiatrist based on your findings

intelligent" on the part of Roridel, such failure of expectation is nor

that it is better for the Court to annul (sic)

indicative of antecedent psychological incapacity. If at all, it merely shows

the marriage?

love's temporary blindness to the faults and blemishes of the beloved.

A Yes, Your Honor.

During its deliberations, the Court decided to go beyond merely ruling on

the facts of this case vis-a-vis existing law and jurisprudence. In view of

Q There is no hope for the marriage?

the novelty of Art. 36 of the Family Code and the difficulty experienced by
many trial courts interpreting and applying it, the Court decided to invite

A There is no hope, the man is also living

two amici curiae, namely, the Most Reverend Oscar V. Cruz, 9 Vicar

with another woman.

Judicial (Presiding Judge) of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of

Q Is it also the stand of the psychiatrist

the Catholic Church in the Philippines, and Justice Ricardo C. Puno,

10

member of the Family Code Revision Committee. The Court takes this

that the parties are psychologically unfit

occasion to thank these friends of the Court for their informative and

for each other but they are psychologically

interesting discussions during the oral argument on December 3, 1996,

fit with other parties?

which they followed up with written memoranda.

From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the following

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically

guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family

or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven

Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the

by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the

bar:

Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological not

physical. although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the

The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them,

plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and

was mentally or physically ill to such an extent that the person could not

continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is

have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could

rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the

not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such

validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes

incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the

an entire Article on the Family, 11 recognizing it "as the foundation of the

provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, 13 nevertheless such root

nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from

cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating

dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be

nature explained. Expert evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist and

"protected" by the state.

clinical psychologists.

The Family Code 12 echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the

family and emphasizes thepermanence, inviolability and solidarity

celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness
was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." 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.
(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 everyone of the same sex. 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. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them

but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise

The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.

Those who are unable to assume

the essential

obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the

nature. 14

party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild

characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional

Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to

outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be

harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to

shown as downright incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or

reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight

difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening

should be given to decision of such appellate tribunal. Ideally subject

disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the

to our law on evidence what is decreed as canonically invalid should

personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really

also be decreed civilly void.

accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to

marriage.

This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of
the Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles

be given persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church while

68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well

remaining independent, separate and apart from each other shall walk

as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and

together in synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and

their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be

cherishing marriage and the family as the inviolable base of the nation.

stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the
decision.

(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 he

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of

handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which

the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive,

will be quoted in the decision, briefly staring therein his reasons for his

should be given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was

agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The

taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the

Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the

New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which

court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is

provides:

deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall
discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated
under Canon 1095.

In the instant case and applying Leouel Santos, we have already ruled to

Narvasa,

C.J.,

Davide,

Jr.,

Bellosillo,

grant the petition. Such ruling becomes even more cogent with the use of

Hermosisima, Jr., and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Melo,

Puno

the foregoing guidelines.

Regalado, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concurs in the result.
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.
SO ORDERED.

Francisco,