Void and Voidable Marriages

Republic vs. Melgar

GR No. 139676 March 31, 2006
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Doctrine of the case: There can be no conclusion of psychological incapacity where here is absolutely no
showing that the “defects” were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are
incurable.

Facts: On March 27, 1965, Norma and Eulogio were married before the Catholic Church in Dagupan City.
Their union begot five children, namely, Arneldo, Fermin, Norman, Marion Joy, and Eulogio III. On
August 19, 1996, Norma filed for declaration of nullity of her marriage on the ground of Eulogio’s
psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations. According to Norma, the
manifestations of Eulogio’s psychological incapacity are his immaturity, habitual alcoholism,
unbearable jealousy, maltreatment, constitutional laziness, and abandonment of his family since
December 27, 1985. On January 20, 1997, the RTC rendered its decision nullifying the marriage of
Norma and Eulogio. The attendant circumstances in this case really point to the fact that defendant
was unprepared to comply with his responsibilities as a good and responsible husband to his wife
and a loving father to his children.

Petitioner, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed an appeal with the CA,
contending that the evidence presented are not sufficient to declare the marriage void under
Article 36 of the Family Code. On August 11, 1999, the CA rendered its Decision affirming the
decision of the RTC. [I]t has been adequately established that the decree of annulment is proper
not simply because of defendant’s habitual alcoholism but likewise because of other causes
amounting to psychological incapacity as a result of which defendant has failed to perform his
obligations under Articles 68-72, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code.

Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Is Eulogio psychologically incapacitated?

Ruling: No, Eulogio is not psychologically incapacitated. T the Court laid down in Republic of the Philippines
v. Molina34 the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, to
wit:

(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 and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to
 the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like
the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.
(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 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

In the present case, Norma alone testified in support of her complaint for declaration of nullity of
her marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. She failed to establish the fact that at the time
they were married, Eulogio was already suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived
him of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities. In
fact, Norma admitted in her testimony that her marital woes and Eulogio’s disagreeable behavior
started only after the birth of their firstborn and when Eulogio lost his job. WHEREFORE, the present
petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 11, 1999 in CA-
G.R. CV No. 55538, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Dagupan City in
Civil Case No. CV-96-01061-D, dated January 20, 1997, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.