I.

Ariz and Paz were officemates at Perlas ng Silangan Bank (PSB). They fell in
love with each other and had a civil and church wedding. Meanwhile, Paz
rapidly climbed the corporate ladder of PSB and eventually became its Vice
President, while Ariz remained one of its bank supervisors, although he was
short of 12 units to finish his Masters of Business Administration (MBA)
degree.
Ariz became envious of the success of his wife. He started to drink
alcohol until he became a drunkard. He preferred to join his "barkadas";
became a wife beater; would hurt his children without any reason; and failed
to contribute to the needs of the family. Despite rehabilitation and
consultation with a psychiatrist, his ways did not change.
After 19 years of marriage, Paz, a devout Catholic, decided to have
their marriage annulled by the church. Through the testimony of Paz and a
psychiatrist, it was found that Ariz was a spoiled brat in his youth and was
sometimes involved in brawls. In his teens, he was once referred to a
psychiatrist for treatment due to his violent tendencies. In due time, the
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT) annulled the union of Ariz and
Paz due to the failure of Ariz to perform and fulfill his duties as a husband and
as a father to their children. The NAMT concluded that it is for the best
interest of Paz, Ariz and their children to have the marriage annulled.
In view of the NAMT decision, Paz decided to file a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of their civil wedding before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City using the NAMT decision and the same
evidence adduced in the church annulment proceedings as basis.
If you are the judge, will you grant the petition? Explain. (5%)
Suggested Answer:
No, I will not grant the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
In Republic vs. Molina (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997), the
Supreme Court ruled that while the interpretation given by the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT) of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines should be given great respect by our courts, they are not
controlling or decisive. Its interpretation is not conclusive in courts. Courts are
still required to make their own determination as to the merits of the case
and not rely solely on the finding of the NAMT.
It has been held that psychological incapacity as a ground for nullifying
a marriage is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to marriage. The three essential requisites in order for
psychological incapacity to be appreciated are: 1) gravity, 2) juridical
antecedence, and 3) incurability.
In the present case, there was no showing that the psychological
incapacity was existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.