Gampong, Bai Monisa T. LLB 1 Sanchez Roman Legal Research Fri/ 6-7 Juy 1, 2011 REPUBLIC v.

COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 268 SCRA 198 FACTS: Roridel and Reynaldo were married and had a son, Andre O. Molina. After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father since he preferred to spend more time with his peers on whom he squandered his money, depended on his parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances, resulting in frequent misunderstandings and intense quarrel which estranged their relationship. Reynaldo was relieved of his job and made Roridel the sole breadwinner. A few weeks later, Reynaldo left and since then abandoned his family. Roridel O. Molina filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina on the grounds of psychological incapacity in complying with the essential marital obligations. ISSUE: Whether or not their irreconciliable differences & opposing and conflicting personalities constitutes to psychological incapacity? HOLDING/S: The Court decided to go beyond merely ruling the facts to the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code. In the present case, 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 "irreconciliable 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 (nor physical) illness. REASONING:There is no showing that his alleged personality traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the time of marriage celebration. While some effort was made to prove that there was a failure to fulfill pre-nuptial impressions of "thoughtfulness and gentleness" on Reynaldo's part of being "conservative, homely and intelligent" on the part of Roridel, such failure of expectation is nor indicative of antecedent psychological incapacity. The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could nor get along with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. POLICY: 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. 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. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability 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.