Roridel & Reynaldo Molina were married on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church. They had a son, Andre Molina. A year after the marriage, Reynaldo started manifesting signs of immaturity and irresponsibility: (1) spent more time with his friends (2) depended on his parents for aid & assistance (3) not honest with the finances (4) relieved of his job making Roridel the breadwinner of the family. Roridel went to live with his parents and afterwards, Reynaldo abandoned her and the child. Roridel filed a case for the declaration of nullity of their marriage by virtue of her husband’s psychological incapacity. Reynaldo claims that Roridel’s strange behavior, refusal to perform marital duties & failure to run the household & handle finances caused their quarrels. Roridel on the other hand claims that her husband is immature, irresponsible, dependent, disrespectful, arrogant, chronic liar & infidel. He now lives with a mistress with whom he has a child.
ISSUE
WON Reynaldo is psychologically incapacitated?
HELD
HELD
NO. Marriage is valid.
RATIO:
1. They seem to have a difficulty or outright refusal or neglect in performing their obligations. They’re not incapable of doing them.
2. Failure of their expectations is not tantamount to psychological incapacity.
3. Guidelines for Art. 36
a. Burden of proof to show nullity of marriage: plaintiff. Presumption of existence of marriage over its dissolution & nullity.
b. Root cause of incapacity should be: medically/clinically defined, alleged in complaint, proven by experts, clearly explained in decision.
c. Existing at time of celebration of marriage.
d. Medically/clinically permanent or incurable, whether absolute or relative. Incapacity directly related to assumption of marital obligations, doesn’t include incapacity in profession, etc.
e. Grave to render them incapable. Not mere refusal, neglect or difficulty or ill will.
f. Essential obligations outlined in FC Art. 68-71 and 220, 221, 225. State non-compliance in petition with evidence, include in decision.
g. Consider National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines interpretations. Not binding should be given respect since this law originated from Canon law. Harmonize civil law w/religious faith.
h. Prosecuting attorney/fiscal and Sol. Gen. will appear as counsels for the state. They should submit certification within 15 days from submission of case for resolution.
RATIO:
1. They seem to have a difficulty or outright refusal or neglect in performing their obligations. They’re not incapable of doing them.
2. Failure of their expectations is not tantamount to psychological incapacity.
3. Guidelines for Art. 36
a. Burden of proof to show nullity of marriage: plaintiff. Presumption of existence of marriage over its dissolution & nullity.
b. Root cause of incapacity should be: medically/clinically defined, alleged in complaint, proven by experts, clearly explained in decision.
c. Existing at time of celebration of marriage.
d. Medically/clinically permanent or incurable, whether absolute or relative. Incapacity directly related to assumption of marital obligations, doesn’t include incapacity in profession, etc.
e. Grave to render them incapable. Not mere refusal, neglect or difficulty or ill will.
f. Essential obligations outlined in FC Art. 68-71 and 220, 221, 225. State non-compliance in petition with evidence, include in decision.
g. Consider National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines interpretations. Not binding should be given respect since this law originated from Canon law. Harmonize civil law w/religious faith.
h. Prosecuting attorney/fiscal and Sol. Gen. will appear as counsels for the state. They should submit certification within 15 days from submission of case for resolution.