Article 36 of the Family Code protects the family.

The first guideline under Molina provides that "any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity."

Section 1 and 2, Art. XV of the Constitution, which respectively state that " the State
recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its
solidarity and actively promote its total development," and that marriage, as an inviolable social
institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State" These provisions
highlight the importance of the family and the constitutional protection accorded to the institution
of marriage.

Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

What is Psychological Incapacity?

The Family Code has not defined the concept of "psychological incapacity." The intention is
to give an elbow room for the courts to determine under what circumstances a person may be
suffering from psychological incapacity. The only criterion given is the failure of a party to
comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage which is psychological and mentally
rooted.

To be a ground for declaration of nullity of the marriage, "psychological incapacity" must:

(a) be serious or grave;

(b) have existed upon the celebration of or after the marriage;

(c) be incurable.

In Santos V. Court of Appeals wherein the Court , through Justice Vitug, acknowledge that
"Psychological incapacity" refers to no less than mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed
and discharged by the parties to the marriage."

Republic of the Philippines vs. Reghis M. Romero II, et. al., G.R. No. 209180;Romero vs.
Romero G.R. No. 209253, February 24, 2016

Facts: Reghis and Olivia were married on May 11, 1972 at Mary the Queen Parish in San Juan
City and were blessed with two (2) children. The couple experienced a turbulent and tumultuous
marriage, often having violent fights and jealous fits. Reghis could not forgive Olivia for dragging
him into marriage and resented her condescending attitude towards him. They became even
more estranged when Reghis secured a job as a medical representative and became
engrossed in his career and focused on supporting his parents and siblings. As a result, he
spent little time with his family, causing Olivia to complain that Reghis failed to be a real
husband to her. In 1986, the couple parted ways.
On June 16, 1998, Reghis filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of
Quezon City, citing his psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations.
In support of his petition, Reghis testified that he married Olivia not out of love but out of the
desire to please the latter's parents who were kind and accommodating to him. Reghis further
maintained that he was not prepared to comply with the essential marital obligations at the time,
as his mind geared towards finishing his studies and finding employment to support his parents
and siblings. He also added that Olivia is in a relationship with a certain Eddie Garcia but he has
no ill-feelings towards Mr. Garcia, as he and Olivia have been separated for a long time. Reghis
also presented Dr. Valentina Nicdao-Basilio, a clinical psychologist, who submitted a
Psychological Evaluation Report dated April 28, 1998 and testified that Reghis suffered from
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD), that Reghis behavioral disorder gave him
a strong obsession for whatever endeavor he chooses, such as his work, to the exclusion of
other responsibilities and duties such as those pertaining to his role as father and husband. Dr.
Basilio surmised that Reghis's OCPD was the root of the couple's disagreements and that the
same is incurable, explaining too that Reghis was an unwilling groom as marriage was farthest
from his mind at the time and, as such, felt cheated into marriage. The Office of the Solicitor
General, representing the Republic of the Philippines, opposed the petition. The RTC granted
the petition and declared the marriages null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological
incapacity. The Republic and Olivia move for reconsideration, however, denied by the RTC, the
CA affirmed the findings of the RTC.

The Republic filed a petition for review on certiorari and claimed that the methodology employed
in evaluating Reghis' condition is not comprehensive enough and that based on Reghis' own
testimony, he was able to perform his marital obligations as he lived together with Olivia for
years and attended to his duties to their children. A separate petition for review on certiorari,
was filed by Olivia. She pointed out that Reghis himself admitted his marital obligations as
husband to Olivia and father to thier children. She added that If Reghis indeed felt that he was
being forced into marriage, he could have simply abandoned her then or refused to take his
vows on their wedding day.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the RTC's declaration of nullity on the ground
of psychological incapacity.

RULING: Article 36 of the Family Code must not be confused with divorce law that cuts the
marital bond at the time the grounds for divorce manifest themselves; rather, it must be limited
to cases where there is a downright incapacity or inability to assume and fulfill the basic marital
obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant
spouse. Thus absent sufficient evidence to prove psychological incapacity within the context of
Article 36 of the family Code, the court is compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital
tie.

The petitions are granted, the decisions of the CA are reversed and Set Aside.