REPUBLIC v.

DAGDAG
Facts: Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag and begot two children. Avelino would
disappear for months without explanation and attend to drinking sprees with friends and return home
drunk when with the family; forced his wife to have sexual intercourse and if she resisted, would inflict
injure to the latter. He left his family again and never heard of him. Erlinda was constrained to look for a
job. Erlinda then learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime, and that he escaped from jail who
remains at-large at date.Erlinda filed for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The trial court rendered a decision
declaring the marriage void under Artcile 36 of the Family Code. The Solicitor General appealed to the
Court of Appeals that the lower court erred in declaring the apellee's marriage to Avelino Dagdag null
and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
Code, the psychological incapacity of the nature contemplated by the law not having been proven to
exist. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Issue: Whether or not immaturity and irresponsibility, habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive from justice
constitutes psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code to declare the marriage null and
void.

Ruling: No. The ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina case is reiterated herein in which the
Court laid down the following GUIDELINES in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the
Family Code:

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.

(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 have existed 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 every one of the same sex.

(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 up to 71 of the Family Code
as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 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.