Scribd
Upload
113 views

Molina Guidelines

(1) The guidelines establish that the burden of proof for nullifying a marriage lies with the plaintiff. Courts must resolve any doubts in favor of upholding the marriage. (2) The psychological incapacity claimed as grounds for nullity must be clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision. It must be an illness that existed at the time of marriage. (3) The incapacity must be proven to have existed at the time the marriage vows were exchanged and shown to be medically permanent or incurable with regards to marital obligations.

Uploaded by

Paul Jordan Berguia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views

Molina Guidelines

(1) The guidelines establish that the burden of proof for nullifying a marriage lies with the plaintiff. Courts must resolve any doubts in favor of upholding the marriage. (2) The psychological incapacity claimed as grounds for nullity must be clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision. It must be an illness that existed at the time of marriage. (3) The incapacity must be proven to have existed at the time the marriage vows were exchanged and shown to be medically permanent or incurable with regards to marital obligations.

Uploaded by

Paul Jordan Berguia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MOLINA GUIDELINES

the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code 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. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of
marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the
Family,   recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable,"
11

thereby protecting it from 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
12

the permanence, inviolability and solidarity

(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. The evidence must convince the
court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or 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. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit
the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis,   nevertheless such root
13

cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature explained. Expert
evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist and clinical psychologists.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the 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 his/her own children as an essential
obligation of marriage.

(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. The illness must be shown as
downright incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words,
there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the
personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby
complying with the obligations essential to 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. It is clear
that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New
Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:

The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to
assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature. 

You might also like