Mr.

Matthew Socorro
.......................................
.......................................

Re: Request for Legal Opinion

Dear Mr. Socorro:

Here is my opinion that you requested. The facts, gathered from you are as follows;

You and Mrs. Geraldine Socorro were married 7 years ago in Vigan, Ilocos Norte and you have been
blessed with 2 children. The relationship of you and your wife started to sour by 2016 and that you have seen
your wife entering in an inn with a certain, Erning. Later, you have learned that they have been living together,
since you two have separated in fact, and that they already have a child, a 3 months old child. You asked if you
could declare your marriage with Geraldine null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity, such that
Geraldine is an irresponsible wife, a liar, and frequently go to casino, aside from the fact that she has been
cohabiting with someone.

The question is whether the marriage be declared null and void on the ground of Geraldine’s
psychological incapacity for being an irresponsible wife, a liar and a gambler.

According to the Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, “A marriage contracted by any party
who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitates to comply with his obligations of
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization” which
was introduced for the first time since the Japanese occupation allowed a semblance of divorce in the
Philippines via a declaration of the nullity of marriage where one or both party is psychologically incapacitated
to assume essential marital obligations.

Psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or neglect in the performance of
some marital obligations, it is essential that the party involved must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due
to some psychological illness existing at the time of the marriage. Moreover, it was held in Reyes vs. Reyes
that persons afflicted with a personality disorder will not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof and self-
diagnosis consisting only of bare denial of the doctors separate diagnosis does not necessarily evoke
credence and cannot trump the clinical findings of experts. Hence with the experts opinion respondent is thus
deemed to be psychologically incapacitated.

It was set in Republic vs. Molina the guidelines for interpretation of the article mentioned, the following
guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the
guidance of the bench and the bar:

1.) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.

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 and 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) The incapacity must be also be shown 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 essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as
regards the husband and wife as well as Article 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and
their 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.
 The guideline set in Molina doctrine is an amendment to the Santos Case, wherein there are
only three essential characteristics of a psychological incapacity: 1) gravity 2) juridical antecedence 3)
incurability be present. On the other hand, it was also held in Santos vs. CA that, until further judicial and legal
parameters are established, every circumstance that may have any bearing on the degree, extent and other
conditions of incapacity must be carefully examined and evaluated to prevent indiscriminate declaration of
nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity. This only means that the court will still based their decision
based on the case presented.

At best, the circumstances are grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. It was
held in Marcos vs. Marcos, that Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be equated with legal separation in
which grounds need not to be rooted in “psychological incapacity” but on physical violence, moral pressure,
civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like. Therefore,
based on the facts given, Geraldine being an irresponsible wife, a liar and a gambler may not be a valid ground
for her to be considered as psychologically incapacitated to comply to her essential marital obligations.

Thereby, based on the different jurisprudence mentioned and applicable to the case, your prayer to
declare the nullity of your marriage with Geraldine based on her psychological incapacity might not prosper.