Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No. 108763

Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No.
108763
FACTS
A petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 was filed challenging the Decision of CA affirming in toto
the decision of RTC which declared the marriage void ab initio, on the ground of “psychological
incapacity” under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
Respondent Roridel O. Molina said that after their son was born, Reynaldo showed signs of “immaturity
and irresponsibility” as a husband and a father since he spent more time with his friends on whom he
squandered his money, it is also one of the reasons why they have frequent quarrels between them. He
was relieved of his job and Roridel became the breadwinner of the family. Reynaldo left Roridel and
their child and abandoned them. The RTC then granted Roridel’s petition for declaration of nullity of her
marriage which was affirmed by CA.
Reynaldo admitted that they can no longer live as husband and wife but he contended that it was
because of Roridel’s strange behavior, refusal to perform her marital duties, and her failure to run the
household and handle their finances.
ISSUE: WON opposing and conflicting personalities constitutes psychological incapacity
RULING:
In the present case, there is no clear sign that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It is
more of a difficulty or refusal in the performance of marital obligations. Mere showing of "irreconcilable
differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is also
essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so.
In the case of Reynaldo, there is no showing that his traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity
at the time of their marriage celebration. Such failure of expectation is not indicative of psychological
incapacity, it merely show love’s temporary blindness to the faults and blemishes of the beloved.
The court assailed the decision is reversed and set aside, and the marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo
remains vaild.
Ngo Te v. Yu-Te
FACTS
Edward Te filed a petition before the RTC of Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena
on the basis of the latter's psychological incapacity. Rowena did not file an answer. The clinical
psychologist who examined the petitioner found both parties psychological incapacitated. The trial court
declared that the marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that both parties were
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The Office of the SolGen
then filed its notice of appeal.
They contended the court ruled that petitioner failed to prove psychological incapacity and the clinical
psychologist did not personally examined the respondent and relied only on the information provided
by the petitioner.
ISSUE: WON the marriage between the parties is null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Ruling:
Yes. The SC ruled that the marriage between the two is null and void due to both parties’ psychological
disorder as evidenced by the finding of the psychologist. Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe
and incurable psychological incapacity. The totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding
of psychological incapacity Both cannot perform the essential marital obligations due to their behaviors
at a very young age.
Marcos v Marcos
Facts:
Brenda filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the grounds of psychological
incapacity. The RTC found Wilson to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations
because of his failure to find work and support for his family. The RTC declared the marriage null and
void but reversed by the CA.
Issue:
I. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals could set aside the findings by the Regional Trial Court
of psychological incapacity of a respondent in a Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage simply
because the respondent did not subject himself to psychological evaluation.
II. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented and the demeanor of all the witnesses should be
the basis of the determination of the merits of the Petition."
Ruling:
1. The court agrees with the petitioner that personal medical or psychological examination of
respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, the
totality of the evidence she presented does not show such incapacity.
2. The court ruled in the negative, although they were convinced that respondent failed to provide
material support to his family but the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of
psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his "defects" were
already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable.
Bernardino v. CA
FACTS
Petitioner filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage anchored on the alleged
"psychological incapacity" of private respondent, as provided for under Article 36 of the Family Code. To
support his position, he alleged that his wife was "horrified" by the mere thought of having children as
evidenced by the fact that she had not borne petitioner a child. Furthermore, he also alleged that
private respondent abandoned him by living in the United States and had in fact become an American
citizen; and that throughout their marriage they lived together for not more than three years.
On the other hand, private respondent denied that she refused to have a child. She portrayed
herself as one who loves children as she is a nurse by profession and that she would from time to time
borrow her husband's niece and nephews to care for them. She also faulted her husband for the
breakup of their marriage, alleging that he had been unfaithful to her. He allegedly had two affairs with
different women, and he begot at least three children with them
The trial court dismissed the complaint and the petitioner appealed to CA and affirmed the
decision of the RTC.
Issue: WON there can be a declaration of nullity of the marriage between petitioner and private
respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity
Ruling: The court denied the petition.
The rule is that the facts alleged in the petition and the evidence presented, considered in totality,
should be sufficient to convince the court of the psychological incapacity of the party concerned.
Petitioner, however, failed to substantiate his allegation that private respondent is psychologically
incapacitated. His allegations relating to her refusal to cohabit with him and to bear a child was strongly
disputed, as the records undeniably bear out. Furthermore, the acts and behavior of private respondent
that petitioner cited occurred during the marriage, and there is no proof that the former exhibited a
similar predilection even before or at the inception of the marriage.

Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No. 108763

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No. 108763

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No. 108763

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No.

ISSUE: WON opposing and conflicting personalities constitutes psychological incapacity

Ruling: The court denied the petition.

You might also like