REPUBLIC VS. CA and MOLINA GR No. 108763.

February 13, 1997

FACTS:
Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina on 14 April 1985 in Manila, and gave birth
to a son a year after. Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility on
the early stages of the marriage, observed from his tendency to spend time with
his friends and squandering his money with them, from his dependency from his
parents, and his dishonesty on matters involving his finances. Thereafter, Reynaldo
was relieved of his job in 1986. Roridel became the sole breadwinner of the family. In March
1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and proceeded to Baguio City. Reynaldo left
her and their child a week later. The couple are separated-in-fact for more than three years.
On 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage
to Reynaldo Molina. Evidence for Roridel consisted of her own testimony, that of two of her
friends, a social worker, and a psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical
Center. Reynaldo did not present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial
conference. On 14 May 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void.
The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the
appeals and affirmed in toto the RTCs decision. Hence, the present recourse.

ISSUE:
Whether opposing or conflicting personalities should be construed as psychological
incapacity

HELD:
In Santos v. Court of Appeals, where psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a
mental (not physical) incapacity, existing at the time the marriage is celebrated, and that
there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence,
and incurability. In the present case, there is no clear showing to us that the psychological
defect spoken of is an incapacity; but appears to be more of a difficulty, if not outright
refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of
irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes
psychological incapacity. The Court, in this case, promulgated the guidelines in the
interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, removing any visages of it
being the most liberal divorce procedure in the world: (1) The burden of proof belongs to the
plaintiff; (2) the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically
identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by expert, and clearly explained in
the decision; (3) The incapacity must be proven existing at the time of the celebration of
marriage; (4) the incapacity must be clinically or medically permanent or incurable; (5) such

illness must be grave enough; (6) the essential marital obligation must be embraced by
Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as regards husband and wife, and Articles 220 to 225 of
the same code as regards parents and their children; (7) interpretation made by the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church, and (8) the trial must order the fiscal
and the Solicitor-General to appeal as counsels for the State. The Supreme Court granted
the petition, and reversed and set aside the assailed decision; concluding that the marriage
of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.