RP V.

Molina
Court has been swamped with various petitions to declare
marriages void based on the ground of psychological incapacity;
Facts: Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985 in
Manila; they bore a child; Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity
and irresponsibility, spend more time with his friends whom he
squandered his money; depended on parents for aid; never honest
with his wife with finances resulting to frequent quarrels;
Reynaldo was then relieved of his job in Manila; Roridel has been
the sole breadwinner of the family; after an intense quarrel they
became estranged; Roridel moved in with her parents to Baguio;
Reynaldo left Roridel and her child;
Reynaldo has thus shown that he was psychologically incapable of
complying with essential marital obligations; incompatible from
the start. Reynaldo: 1) Roridels strange behavior on insisting to
maintain her group of friends after marriage; 2) Roridels refusal
to perform martial obligations; 3) Roridels failure to run
household and finances. Roridel: 1) Separated-in-fact for 3 years;
3) Not asking for support; 4) Not asking for damages; 5) Custody
of child her own testimony, social worker, and psychiatrist
RTC: marriage is void; CA: affirmed decision of RTC
ISSUE: SG: CA is erroneous on the interpretation of the phrase
psychological incapacity; CA relied on the RTCs findings that
the marriage between the two parties broke up because of their
opposing and conflicting personalities which is not equivalent
to psychological incapacity according to SG;
Held: There is no showing that Reynaldos personality traits
constitute psychological incapacity existing at the time of the
marriage celebration

Aftter the Courts deliberations guidelines: [PROBE-PIG];

subject to law on evidence: what is decreed as canonically invalid
should be decreed civilly void (because Art. 36 was based on
Canon Law) PETITION GRANTED; MARRIAGE SUBSISTS
*Opinions: J. Padilla, concurring: Santos v CA has different facts
from case at bar
J. Romero, separate: opposing and conflicting personalities not
the same as psychological incapacity; not simply neglect of
oblogations but defect in psychological nature which renders
them incapable of performing marital duties; incapacity not result
of mental illness; lack of appreciation for ones marital obligation;
psychological incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has
nothing to do with consent it refers to obligations attendant to
marriage; Committee has classified basis for determining void
marriages: Canon 1095: those who because of causes of a
psychological nature are unable to assume the essential
obligations of marriage; Canon law only recognizes valid and
void; Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA;
J. Vitug: The committee would like to judge the provision on a
case-to-case basis, findings of expert and opinions of the church
are given weight; Canon 1095: 1) Lack of sufficient use of Reason;
2) Who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment
concerning essential matrimonial duties; 3) because of
psychological nature cannot assume essential obligations of
marriage; Psychological incapacity must pass following tests: 1)
must be psychological or mental not physical; 2) inability not
refusal to assume marital obligations; 3) Psychologic condition
must exist at the time the marriage is contracted although its over
manifestations and marriage may occur only after; 4) Mental
disorder must be grave and incurable; *Constitutional mandate
on marriage not merely directive but must be given meaning