320 SCRA 76, December 08, 1999, J. Mendoza

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Lucita Estrella married Mario Hernandez on January 1, 1981 adn they begot three (3) children. On July 10, 1992, Lucita filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City, a petition for annulment of marriage under Article 36 alleging that from the time of their marriage, Mario failed to perform his obligation to support the family, devoting most of this time drinking, had affairs with many women and cohabiting with another women with whom he had an illegitimate child, and finally abandoning her and the family.

The RTC dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE:

Whether there was psychological incapacity under Article. 36

RULING:

Petitioner failed to establish the fact that at the time they were married, private respondent was suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived him of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, no evidence was presented to show that private respondent was not cognizant of the basic marital obligations. It was not sufficiently proved that  private respondent was really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a psychological nature, and not merely physical.

Private respondent’s alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by themselves constitute ground for finding that he is suffering from a psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must e shown that these facts are manifestations of a discolored personality which make private respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, and not merely due to private respondent’s youth and self-conscious feeling of being handsome, as the appellate court held.

Judgment AFFIRMED.

268 SCRA 198, February 13, 1997, J. Panganiban

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On April 14, 1985,plaintiff Roridel O. Molina married Reynaldo Molina which union bore a son. After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband and father as he preferred to spend more time with his friends, depended on his parents for assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances resulting in frequent quarrels between them. The RTC granted Roridel petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE:

Do irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities constitute psychological incapacity?

RULING:

There is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to be more of a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations.

Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness.

The evidence merely adduce that Roridel and her husband could not get along with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem, neither its juridical antecendence nor its incurability.

The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines 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. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity  must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.

4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disablity of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes.

6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husbad and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents adn their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Churh in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983.

8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and Solicitor General to appear as counsel of the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a  certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.

Judgment REVERSED and SET ASIDE.