REPUBLIC - v - MOLINA
Feb. 13,
1997, GR 108763
2.
Wife claims …
Ponente:
Panganiban, J.
Facts:
1.
Roridel and
Reynaldo Molina were married on April 12, 1985 in Manila, had one son (Andre),
that after 1 year of marriage husband showed signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility” as husband and a father
- He preferred to spend more time
with his peers and friends who he squandered his money
- He depended on his parents for aid
and assistance
- Never honest to her regarding
their finances
- He was relieved from his hob in
February 1986 and since then wife has been the sole breadwinner of the family
3.
In October 1986
they had an intense quarrel that estranged their relationship
4.
In March 1987 wife
resigned from her job n Manila and lived with her parents in Baguio
5.
Husband left
Roridel and her child
6.
Reynaldo answers
they could no longer live as husband and wife and the misunderstandings and the
quarrels were because of …
- Wife’s
strange behaviour of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after
their marriage
- Wife’s
refusal to perform some of her marital duties
- Wife’s
failure to run the household and handle their finances
7.
RTC rendered the
judgment decrying the marriage VOID. CA affirmed.
Issue: WON
the decision of CA and RTC correct in rendering the subject marriage void due
to psychological incapacity
Held/Ratio:
PETITION GRANTED. ASSAILED DECISION IS REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
CA
decision: “As a ground for annulment to marriage, we view
psychological incapacity as a broad range of mental and behavioural conduct on
the part of one spouse indicative of how he or she regards the marital union,
and 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 spouses to their individual fates.”
Solicitor
General: Opposing and conflicting personalities is not equivalent to
psychological incapacity
Court
invited two Amici Curiae: Most Reverend Oscar Cruz (Vicar Judicial of the
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines) and Justice Ricardo Puno (member of the Family Code Revision
Committee) submitted guidelines in interpretation and application of Art. 36 of
the Family Code.
1.
The burden of
proof show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
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
d. clearly explained in the
decision.
3.
The incapacity
must be proven to be existing at “the time
of the celebration” of the marriage.
4.
Such incapacity
must be known to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
5.
Such illness must
be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
6.
The essental
marital obligations must be those embraced by Article 68 unto 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Art. 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and children.
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.
8.
The trial court
must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the State.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
