Republic vs.

CA and Molina

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997

FACTS:

The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the

respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of

psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, after a year,

Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as

husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he

squandered his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was

never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple

had an intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was

estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio

City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since

then he abandoned them.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological

incapacity.
HELD:

The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains

valid. What constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of

irreconcilable differences and confliction personalities. It is indispensable

that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential

marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological

illness. Reynaldo’s action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such

characteristics that would comprise grounds for psychological

incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her

husband cannot get along with each other and had not shown gravity of the

problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the

expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but

only incompatibility which is not considered as psychological incapacity.

The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological

incapacity laid set forth in this case:

burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff, root causes of the

incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined, such incapacity should

be in existence at the time of the marriage, such incapacity must be grave so

as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of marital

obligations of marriage, such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as

well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code, decision of the National

Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be respected,

court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act

on behalf of the state.