G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
REPUBLIC of the PHILS., petitioner vs. RORIDEL O. MOLINA, respondents
FACTS:
Respondent filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina, the latter being psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital obligations and was a highly immature and habitually quarrelsome individual.
The parties were legally married in 1985 and out of said marriage was born a son. They were separated-in-fact for more than 3 years. CA declared the marriage void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not subject marriage is void ab initio due to psychological incapacity.
RULING:
No. The marriage subsists and remains valid.
Psychological incapacity muct be characterized by a) GRAVITY; b) JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE and c) INCURABILITY.
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 maritime obligations.
Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes pscychological incapacity. There was no showing of the existence of the 3 characteristics above mentioned.
The following are guidelines set forth by the SC for 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. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.
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;
d) clearly explained in the decision.
3) The incapacity must be proven to be exisiting at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
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 68-71 of the Family Code as regards husband and wife as well as Articles 220-221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children.
7.) Interpretatiosn given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by by our courts.
8.) The trial court must order the Prosecuting Attorney or the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment