80.
Antonio vs Reyes
FACTS:
 Petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to
respondent declared null and void.
He alleges that respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage.
He, claimed that respondent persistently lied about
herself, the people around her, her occupation, income,
educational attainment and other events or things.
Respondent exhibited insecurities and jealousies over the
petitioner to the extent of calling up the latter’s officemates
to monitor his whereabouts.
The trial court gave credence to Antonio's evidence and
thus declared the marriage null and void. Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court's decision.  Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage
It held that the totality of evidence presented was
insufficient to establish Reyes' psychological incapacity.
It declared that the requirements in the 1997 Molina case
had not been satisfied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Antonio has established his cause of action
for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family
Code and, generally, under the Molina guidelines.
RULING:
Yes. The root causes of Reyes’ psychological incapacity
have been medically or clinically identified that was
sufficiently proven by experts.
The gravity of respondent’s psychological incapacity was
considered so grave that a restrictive clause was appended
to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage
without their consent.
It would be difficult for an inveterate pathological liar to
commit the basic tenets of relationship between spouses
based on love, trust and respect.
Furthermore, Reyes’ case is incurable considering that
petitioner tried to reconcile with her but her behavior
remains unchanged.
The case sufficiently satisfies the Molina guidelines:
1. First, that Antonio had sufficiently overcome his
burden in proving the psychological incapacity of
his wife;
2. Second, that the root cause of Reyes' psychological
incapacity has been medically or clinically
identified that was sufficiently proven by experts,
and was clearly explained in the trial court's
decision;
3. Third, that she fabricated friends and made up
letters before she married him prove that her
psychological incapacity was have existed even
before the celebration of marriage;
4. Fourth, that the gravity of Reyes' psychological
incapacity was considered so grave that a
restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of
nullity prohibited by the National Appellate
without their consent;
5. Fifth, that she being an inveterate pathological liar
makes her unable to commit the basic tenets of
relationship between spouses based on love, trust,
and respect.
6. Sixth, that the CA clearly erred when it failed to
take into consideration the fact that the marriage
was annulled by the Catholic Church. However, it
is the factual findings of the judicial trier of facts,
and not of the canonical courts, that are accorded
significant recognition by this Court.
7. Seventh, that Reyes' case is incurable considering
that Antonio tried to reconcile with her but her
behavior remains unchanged.
Hence, the court conclude that petitioner has established
his cause of action for declaration of nullity under Article
36 of the Family Code.