Republic v.

CA and Molina GR 108763, 13 February 1997 Facts: Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina on 14 April 1985 in Manila, and gave birt to a son a year a!ter" Reynaldo s owed signs o! #immat$rity and irresponsibility% on t e early stages o! t e marriage, observed !rom is tendency to spend time wit is !riends and s&$andering is money wit t em, !rom is dependency !rom is parents, and is dis onesty on matters involving is !inances" Reynaldo was relieved o! is 'ob in 198(, Roridel became t e sole breadwinner t erea!ter" )n Marc 198*, Roridel resigned !rom er 'ob in Manila and proceeded to +ag$io ,ity" Reynaldo le!t er and t eir c ild a wee- later" . e co$ple is separated/in/!act !or more t an t ree years" On 1( A$g$st 1990, Roridel !iled a veri!ied petition !or declaration o! n$llity o! er marriage to Reynaldo Molina" 1vidence !or Roridel consisted o! er own testimony, t at o! two o! er !riends, a social wor-er, and a psyc iatrist o! t e +ag$io 2eneral 3ospital and Medical ,enter" Reynaldo did not present any evidence as e appeared only d$ring t e pre/trial con!erence" On 14 May 1991, t e trial co$rt rendered '$dgment declaring t e marriage void" . e 4olicitor 2eneral appealed to t e ,o$rt o! Appeals" . e ,o$rt o! Appeals denied t e appeals and a!!irmed in toto t e R.,5s decision" 3ence, t e present reco$rse" )ss$e: 6 et er opposing or con!licting personalities s o$ld be constr$ed as psyc ological incapacity 3eld: . e ,o$rt o! Appeals erred in its opinion t e ,ivil ,ode Revision ,ommittee intended to liberali7e t e application o! 8 ilippine civil laws on personal and !amily rig ts, and olding psyc ological incapacity as a broad range o! mental and be avioral cond$ct on t e part o! one spo$se indicative o! ow e or s e regards t e marital $nion, is or er personal relations ip wit t e ot er spo$se, as well as is or er cond$ct in t e long a$l !or t e attainment o! t e principal ob'ectives o! marriage9 w ere said cond$ct, observed and considered as a w ole, tends to ca$se t e $nion to sel!/destr$ct beca$se it de!eats t e very ob'ectives o! marriage, warrants t e dissol$tion o! t e marriage"
. e ,o$rt reiterated its r$ling in 4antos v" ,o$rt o! Appeals, w ere psyc ological incapacity s o$ld re!er to no less t an a mental :not p ysical; incapacity, e<isting at t e time t e marriage is celebrated, and t at t ere is ardly any do$bt t at t e intendment o! t e law as been to con!ine t e meaning o! =psyc ological incapacity5 to t e most serio$s cases o! personality disorders clearly demonstrative o! an $tter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and signi!icance to t e marriage" 8syc ological incapacity m$st be c aracteri7ed by gravity, '$ridical antecedence, and inc$rability" )n t e present case, t ere is no clear s owing to $s t at t e psyc ological de!ect spo-en o! is an incapacity9 b$t appears to be more o! a #di!!ic$lty,% i! not o$trig t #re!$sal% or #neglect% in t e per!ormance o! some marital obligations" Mere s owing o! #irreconcilable di!!erences% and #con!licting personalities% in no wise constit$tes psyc ological incapacity"

. e ,o$rt, in t is case, prom$lgated t e g$idelines in t e interpretation and application o! Article >( o! t e Family ,ode, removing any visages o! it being t e most liberal divorce proced$re in t e world: :1; . e b$rden o! proo! belongs to t e plainti!!9 :?; t e root ca$se o! psyc ological incapacity m$st be medically or clinically identi!ied, alleged in t e complaint, s$!!iciently proven by e<pert, and clearly e<plained in t e decision9 :>; . e incapacity m$st be proven e<isting at t e time o! t e celebration o! marriage9 :4; t e incapacity m$st be clinically or medically permanent or inc$rable9 :5; s$c illness m$st be grave eno$g 9 :(; t e essential marital obligation m$st be embraced by Articles (8 to *1 o! t e Family ,ode as regards $sband and wi!e, and Articles ??0 to ??5 o! t e same code as regards parents and t eir c ildren9 :*; interpretation made by t e @ational Appellate Matrimonial .rib$nal o! t e ,at olic , $rc , and :8; t e trial m$st order t e !iscal and t e 4olicitor/2eneral to appeal as co$nsels !or t e 4tate" . e 4$preme ,o$rt granted t e petition, and reversed and set aside t e assailed decision9 concl$ding t at t e marriage o! Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina s$bsists and remains valid"