G.R. No. 108763, February 13 1997 [Article 36- Psychological Incapacity]
FACTS:
Roridel and Reynaldo got married in 1985 in Manila. During the early years of their marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility, observed from his tendency to spend time with his friends and squandered money with them, his dependency from his parents for financial aid and dishonesty in matters involving finances. Roridel became the sole breadwinner of the family. She then resigned her job in Manila and went to Baguio. Reynaldo left her and their child a week later. The couple is separated in fact for more than 3 years.
Roridel filed a petition to have their marriage void under Article 36, citing Reynaldo's psychological incapacity. She presented evidence consisted of her own testimony, of her two friends, a social worker and a psychiatrist. Reynaldo did not present any evidence and appeared only during the pre-trial. The RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage void. Solicitor General appealed to the CA. CA denied the appeals and ruled in favor of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not opposing or conflicting personalities constitute psychological incapacity.
RULING:
No. 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 guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code: 1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff; 2) the root cause of PI must be (a) medically or clinically identified (b) alleged in the complaint (c) sufficiently proven by experts (d) clearly explained in the decision; 3) it must be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage; 4) it must be medically or clinically permanent or incurable; 5) it must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the marital obligations of marriage; 6) the marital obligations must be embraced by Articles 68 to 71, and Articles 220, 221 and 225 in regard of parents and their children; 7) interpretation by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of Catholic of Church of the Philippines, although not binding, should be given great respect; and 8) the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General must appear as counsel for the State.
