123 De la Fuente v De la Fuenta standards set in Santos and provided for the guidelines to be followed when interpreting and
ines to be followed when interpreting and applying
G.R. No. 188400 Article 36 of the Family Code.
March 8, 2017
By: Calaguas Molina guidelines
Topic: Psychological Incapacity 1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of
Petitioner: Maria Teresa B. Tani-De la Fuente the marriage belongs to the plaintiff and any
Respondent: Rodolfo De la Fuente, Jr. doubt should be resolved in favor of the
Ponente: Leonen, J. existence and continuation of the marriage
and against its dissolution and nullity
DOCTRINE:
Molina provides for the guidelines to be followed when interpreting and applying Article 36 of the Family
Code.
2) The root cause of the psychological
Molina does not require a physician to examine a person and declare him/her to be psychologically incapacity must be: a) medically or clinically
incapacitated, as long as the totality of the evidence established the party’s psychological condition. identified; b) alleged in the complain; c)
sufficiently proven by experts; and d) clearly
The straitjacket application of the Molina guidelines will not be required when such would lead to the explained in the decision. The incapacity
perversion of the family unit, which is the very institution that the laws seek to protect. must be psychological, not physical, although
its manifestations and/or symptoms may be
FACTS: physical. Expert evidence may be given by
Petitioner and respondent were sweethearts in college. While still sweethearts, petitioner already qualified psychiatrists and clinical
noticed that respondent was prone to jealousy. Nevertheless, the two got married and had two children. psychologists
3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing
Respondent’s attitude only worsened as they went on with their marital life. Sometime in 1986, at the time of the celebration of the
respondent suspected that petitioner was having an affair. This led to a quarrel between them where marriage. It may not have been perceivable
respondent poked a gun at petitioner’s head. After this incident, petitioner left their conjugal home, at such time but must have attached at such
together with their children, and never saw respondent again. moment, or prior thereto
4) The incapacity must be shown to be
Petitioner then filed a declaration for nullity of marriage before the RTC of QC. The Office of the City medically or clinically permanent or
Prosecutor found that there was no collusion and recommended the trial of case on the merits. incurable. The incapacity must be relevant to
Respondent failed to attend the pre-trial conference, despite having been duly notified. Petitioner was the assumption of marital obligations.
allowed to present her evidence, including Dr. Lopez, a clinical psychologist who was presented as an
expert witness. Dr. Lopez testified on the findings of his in-depth interviews of petitioner as well as
respondent’s best friend. Dr. Lopez tried to get respondent’s side of the story, but the latter refused
saying “wala kayong pakialam sa akin”.
Dr. Lopez diagnosed respondent with paranoid personality disorder. He further claimed that such
disorder was serious and incurable because of respondent’s severe paranoia. He recommended that the 5) The illness must be grave enough to bring
marriage between petitioner and respondent be annulled as respondent was incapacitated to perform disability of the party to assume the essential
his marital obligations. obligations of marriage. It must be shown as
incapacity or inability, not merely refusal,
The trial court declared null and void the marriage between petitioner and respondent. The OSG neglect, difficulty, or ill will.
appealed to the CA. The CA granted the OSG’s appeal and held that Dr. Lopez’s finding was based on 6) The essential marital obligations must be
insufficient data and failed to comply with the standards set in the Molina case. This led to petitioner’s those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71, as
motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and the subsequent Petition for Review on Certiorari. well as Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the
Family Code. The non-compliance with the
ISSUE: marital obligations must be stated in the
Whether the Molina guidelines were met, and should the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage petition, proven by evidence, and included in
be granted? (Yes) the text of the decision
RULING:
Yes, the petition should be granted as there was sufficient compliance with the Molina standards. 7) Interpretations by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
In Santos v CA (1995), the Court laid down the first standards for determining psychological incapacity in the Philippines, while not controlling or
under Article 36 of the Family Code. 2 years later, Republic v CA and Molina (1997), built on the
As applied in this case
Dr. Lopez’s testimony, as corroborated by
petitioner, sufficiently proved that respondent
suffered from psychological incapacity. Molina
does not requires physician to examine a
person and declare him or her to be
psychologically incapacitated, What matters is
that the totality of evidence present
established the party’s psychological condition.
Dr. Lopez explained that the root cause must
have been a pathogenic parental model, that
respondent developed a similar symptom or
psychic contamination as that of respondent’s
father who was a psychiatric patient.
By the very nature of Article 36, courts must
give due regard to expert opinion on the
psychological and mental dispositions of the
parties.
Petitioner attested that she noticed
respondent’s jealousy even before their
marriage. She believed that he would change
after they got married but this did not happen.
Dr. Lopez further testified that the disorder
was very severe, serious, and incurable
because of the severe paranoria. A person with
paranoid personality disorder would refuse to
admit that there was something wrong and
that there was a need for treatment. This was
corroborated by petitioner when she stated
that respondent repeatedly refused treatment.
Respondent also refused to be examined by Dr.
Lopez.
Dr. Lopez concluded that respondent was
incapacitated to perform his marital
obligations of giving love, respect, and support
to petitioner.
Article 68 of the Family Code obligates the
husband and wife "to live together, observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support." The facts narrated
by petitioner show that respondent failed to,
or could not, comply with the obligations
expected of him as a husband. He was even
apathetic that petitioner filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of their marriage.
 decisive, are given great respect by the
courts
8) The trial court must order the prosecuting The OSG appealed the case for the Republic
attorney or fiscal and the SolGen to appear after the trial court had ruled in favor declaring
as counsel for the State as Defensor vinculi. the marriage null and void.
SolGen shall issue a certification, which will
be quoted in the decision, briefly stating his
reasons for opposition or agreement to the
petition. The said certification shall be
submitted to the court within 15 days from
the date when the case was deemed
submitted for resolution of the court.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The marriage of Maria Teresa Tani-De La
Fuente and Rodolfo De La Fuente is declared NULL and VOID. The Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals dated August 29, 2008 and May 25, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 76243 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated August 14, 2002 of Branch 107, Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-99-37829 is REINSTATED.