Family COde

REPUBLIC VS.
CA & MOLINA
G.R. No. 108763
FACTS
Roridel and Reynaldo Molina get married and bore a child after a year of their
union. During this time, they began to had fights because of the alleged immaturity and
irresponsibility of Reynaldo as a husband and a father. They separated after a major
fight, and Roridel filed for a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the
RTC. The RTC rendered a decision declaring their marriage void ab initio. The Solicitor
General appealed the case to the CA, wherein the decision of the RTC was affirmed in
toto. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not, psychological incapacity is the proper ground to invoke in
declaring marriage void ab initio because of the couple’s opposing and conflicting
personalities?
RULING
No. In a case decided by the SC, it has been held that psychological incapacity
should refer to a mental incapacity and that the law should interpret ‘psychological
incapacity’ as referring to the most serious cases of personality disorders demonstrating
an absolute insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
This condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The Supreme Court
held that mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does
not constitute psychological incapacity, but more of a “difficulty”. It must be shown
that the parties are incapable of doing their duties and responsibilities as a married
couple due to some mental or psychological illness.
Further, according Justice Vitug psychological incapacity must be characterized

by these three requirements: gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. In this
petition, these requisites are absent.
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 psychically 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.
MARCOS vs MARCOS
G.R. No. 136490
FACTS
Brenda and Wilson Marcos met during the Marcos Regime when they were both
working at the Malacañang. After becoming sweethearts, they were married twice: first,
before the trial court; second, before the chaplain of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines. They got five children out of their marriage. After the downfall of Pres.
Marcos, Wilson left the military service then engaged in different business ventures
which did not prosper. Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employment, they would often
quarrel which often leads to physical abuse, inflicting harm to Brenda and their kids, as well. During
those time, Brenda and their children suffered abuse from Wilson. Those tragic incidents led Brenda in
filing a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the Regional Trial Court. The RTC judge
rendered a decision declaring the parties’ marriage null and void ab initio pursuant to Art. 36 of the
Family Code. The decision was appealed to the CA and the RTC decision was reversed, ruling that
psychological incapacity had not been established by the totality of the evidence presented. According to
the CA, the appellant (Wilson) was not subjected to any psychological or psychiatric evaluation and the
findings about the appellant were based only on the interviews conducted with the appellee.
ISSUE
Whether or not, the totality of the evidence presented in this case, including the
testimonies of petitioner, the common children, petitioner’s sister and the social worker,
was enough to sustain a finding that respondent was psychologically incapacitated?
RULING
No. The SC held that the totality of the respondent’s acts does not lead to a
conclusion of psychological incapacity even though he failed to provide material
support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment. Also,
according to the SC, it cannot be shown that his defects were incurable and already
present at the inception of the marriage. The behavior of the respondent can be
connected to the loss of his is job. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only
to the said period when he was not gainfully employed and not to the inception of the
marriage.
Art. 36 of the Family Code should not be confused with a divorce law nor with
the concept of legal separation since this provision speaks of a more serious
psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage.
According to the SC, the evidence presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for
legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void. The SC cannot declare the invalidity
of the marriage due to the following: first, failure of petitioner to show that the alleged
psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability; second, failure to observe the procedural guidelines in invoking Art. 36 of
the Family Code.
LEONILO ANTONIO vs. MARIE IVONNE REYES

G.R. No. 155800
FACTS
ISSUE
RULING

Family COde

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family COde

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family COde

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC VS.

Further, according Justice Vitug psychological incapacity must be characterized

LEONILO ANTONIO vs. MARIE IVONNE REYES

You might also like