Republic vs CA and Molina

Republic vs. CA and Molina

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997
FACTS:
The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel
Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The couple got
married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both
as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered his
money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with his wife in
regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and as a result their
relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio
City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned
them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
HELD:
The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What constitutes
psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and confliction
personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet
the essential marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldos
action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise
grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she
and her husband cannot get along with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem
neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr
Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered
as psychological incapacity.

The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in
this case:
burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff

root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined

such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage

such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials
of marital obligations of marriage
such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the
Family Code
decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be
respected
court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of
the state.

MARCOS V. MARCOS
Facts
Plaintiff Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. Alleging
that the husband failed to provide material support to the family and have resorted to physical
abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the marriage for psychological
incapacity. The RTC declared the marriage null and void under Art. 36 which was however
reversed by CA.
Issues
Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a physician is a
requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.
Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity.
Held
Psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established
by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however that the respondent be
examined by a physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such declaration.
Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material support
to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, 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. Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job
and was not gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. It was during this period that
he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral support, and even left the
family home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the
inception of the marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence showing that his condition is
incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. In sum, this Court cannot
declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of the petitioner to show that the alleged
psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurabilty and
for her failure to observe the guidelines as outline in Republic v. CA and Molina.

Ting vs Velez-Ting
BENJAMIN G. TING, Petitioner, CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING, Respondent
SUBJECT: Stare Decisis (NCC, Art. 8)
FACTS:
Petitioner Benjamin Ting (Benjamin) and respondent Carmen Velez-Ting (Carmen) wed on July
26, 1975. On October 21, 1993, Ms. Carmen filed a petition before the RTC praying for the
declaration of nullity of their marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. In summation,
Carmens basis of Benjamins psychological incapacity consisted of the following
manifestations: (a) alcoholism; (b) violent nature; (c) his compulsive gambling habit; and (d)
Benjamins irresponsibility and immaturity. Mr. Benjamin denied all these allegations. On
January 28, 1998, RTC declared their marriage null and void. Petitioner appealed to Courts of
Appeal then on October 19, 2000, CA reversed the trials court ruling. Carmen filed a motion for
reconsideration, arguing that the Molina case guidelines should not be applied to this case since
the Molina decision was promulgated only on February 13, 1997. She claimed that the Molina
ruling could not be made to apply retroactively, as it would run counter to the principle of stare
decisis. Undaunted, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with this Court. In a Resolution
dated March 5, 2003, this Court granted the petition and directed the CA to resolve Carmens
motion for reconsideration. On review, the CA decided to reconsider its previous ruling. Thus, on
November 17, 2003, it issued an Amended Decision reversing its first ruling and sustaining the
trial courts decision. A motion for reconsideration was filed, this time by Benjamin, but the same
was denied by the CA in its December 13, 2004 Resolution. Hence, the petition for review on
certiorari.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether the CA violated the rule on stare decisis when it refused to follow the guidelines set
forth under the Santos and Molina cases;

(2) Whether the CA correctly ruled that the requirement of proof of psychological incapacity for
the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code has been
liberalized; and
(3) Whether the CAs decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and
void [is] in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
HELD:
(1) No. respondents argument that the doctrinal guidelines prescribed in Santos and Molina
should not be applied retroactively for being contrary to the principle of stare decisis is no longer
new.
(2) No. Case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on
the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own
attendant facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by
experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions
of church tribunals.
(3) No. Evidence adduced by respondent insufficient to prove that petitioner is psychologically
unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a husband, and more particularly, that he suffered
from such psychological incapacity as of the date of the marriage eighteen (18) years ago.
SC reversed the trial courts and the appellate courts rulings declaring the marriage between
petitioner and respondent null and void ab initio.

Mendoza v. Republic, G.R. No. 157854, November 12, 2012

Facts: Arabelle and Dominic Mendoza got married while Arabelle was eight months pregnant.
They lived together but depended on their parents for financial support. Arabelle had different
jobs to support the needs of the family. When Dominic got employed for Toyota in Bel-Air
Makati in 1994, he spent his first salary celebrating with his friends. September of the same year,
Arabelle found out of Dominics illicit relationship with Zaida, his co-employee. Communication
between them became rare and they started sleeping in separate rooms. In November 1995,
Dominic gave her a car as a birthday present only to find out that he did not pay for it, forcing
her to rely on her father-in-law for the payment of the car. Dominic eventually got fired from his
job because of he ran away with P164,000 belonging to his employer. He was charged with
estafa. Petitioner also found out that he swindled many of his clients some of them threatening
her and their family. On October 15, 1997, Dominic abandoned the conjugal abode because
petitioner asked him for time and space to think things over. A month later, she refused his
attempt at reconciliation, causing him to threaten to commit suicide. She and her family
immediately left the house to live in another place concealed from him. On August 5, 1998,
petitioner filed in the RTC her petition for the declaration of the nullity of her marriage with
Dominic based on his psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC
found that all the characteristics of psychological incapacity which are gravity, antecedence and
incurability, were attendant, establishing Dominics psychological incapacity. The Republic
appealed to the CA, arguing that there was no showing that Dominics personality traits either
constituted psychological incapacity existing at the time of the marriage or were of the nature
contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code; that the testimony of the expert witness was not
conclusive upon the court, and that the real reason for the parties separation had been their
frequent quarrels over financial matters and the criminal cases brought against Dominic. CA
reversed the decision of RTC. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N psychological incapacity of Dominic was established

HELD:
The appeal has no merit. The CA correctly indicated that the ill-feelings that the petitioner
harbored against Dominic furnished the basis to doubt the findings of the expert witness; that
such findings were one-sided and that he did not participate in the proceedings. The findings and
conclusions on his psychological profile were solely based on the self-serving testimonial
descriptions of him by the petitioner and her witnesses. The court finds the totality of evidence
adduced by the petitioner insufficient to prove that Dominic was psychologically unfit.
Accordingly, the RTCs findings that Dominics psychological incapacity was characterized by
gravity, antecedence and incurability could not stand scrutiny. His alleged immaturity,
deceitfulness and lack of remorse did not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity. The
court denies the petition for certiorari and affirms that decision of the Court of Appeals.

Republic vs. Encelan

[Civil Law: marriage; psychological incapacity]
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner vs. Cesar Encelan, Respondent
G.R. No. 170022; January 09, 2013
Facts:
Cesar Married Lolita, and they had two children. To support the family, Cesar went
abroad and worked as an OFW in Saudi Arabia. After two years of working abroad, Cesar
learned that Lolita is having an illicit affair with Alvin Perez, and thereafter, left the conjugal
dwelling together with the two children. But even with such circumstances, Cesar never failed to
send financial support for the family. On June 1995, Cesar filed a petition against Lolita for the
declaration of the nullity of his marriage based on Lolitas psychological incapacity. Cesar,
during a hearing even presented a psychological evaluation report on Lolita with the finding that
Lolita was not suffering from any form of psychiatric illness, but had been unable to provide the
expectations expected of her for a good and lasting marital relationship.... and her transferring
from one job to another depicts some interpersonal problem with co-workers as well as her
impatience in attaining her ambitions .... and her refusal to go with her husband abroad signifies
her reluctance to work out a good marital and family relationship... Cesar found ally in RTC as
it gave him a favourable decision which declared his marriage to Lolita null and void. The court
of Appeals also affirmed the decision of RTC, and thereafter, the case was elevated to the
Supreme Court, thus, this case.
Issue:
Whether or not psychological incapacity is indeed present in the person of Lolita as to
nullify a valid marriage.
Ruling: No. Marriage is an inviolable social institution protected by the State and any doubt
should be resolved in favour of its existence and continuation against its dissolution and nullity.
In this case, sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling do not necessarily
constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute
psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment are
manifestations of a disordered personality that actually prevented the erring spouse from

discharging the essential marital obligations, which the court found not present in the person of
Lolita.