The applicability of Article 36 of the Family Code was applied in the case of Republic vs. Molina (268 SCRA 198), which became the standard guideline in psychological incapacity. This case also became to be known as the Molina Doctrine used in courts. The Court invited two amici curiae: Rev. Oscar V. Cruz, Vicar Judicial or Presiding Judge of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Philippine Catholic Church; and Justice Ricardo C. Puno, a member of the Family Code Revision Committee.
The Molina guidelines are as follows:
- 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. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it “as the foundation of the nation.” It decrees marriage as legally “inviolable,” thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be “protected” by the state. The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the fan1ily and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
- 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. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
- The incapacity must be proven to be existing at ”the time of the celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
- 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. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.
- Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
- 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. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
- 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. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon I 095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:
- The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature.
- The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. (removed)
Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally – subject to our law on evidence – what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.
This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church – while remaining independent, separate and apart from each other – shall walk together in synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family as the inviolable base of the nation.
Modifications Made:
2003: A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
Sec. 2 xxx
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.”
Padilla-Rumbaua vs. Rumbaua, 596 SCRA 157, 2009 – Application of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC on Relaxation of OSG certification
Thus, while the appearance of the prosecuting attorney as counsel remained a requirement; the Molina guideline on the matter of certification has been dispensed with.
The Court also confirmed here that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is procedural or remedial in character; it does not create or remove any vested right, but only operates as a remedy in aid of or confirmation of already existing rights. The settled rule is that procedural laws may be given retroactive effect, as held in De Los Santos v. Vda. de Mangubat.
Rachel Del Rosario vs. Jose Del Rosario, G.R. No. 222541
The Supreme Court instructs that the evidence of psychological illness need not necessarily come from the afflicted spouse, but can come from the aggrieved spouse himself/herself or from persons intimately related to the spouses, (i.e., relatives and close friends, who could clearly testify on the allegedly incapacitated spouse’s condition at or about the time of marriage). In other words, even the lack of personal examination and interview of the incapacitated spouse will not per se invalidate the findings of the experts.
(Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 222541)
An expert opinion is not absolutely necessary and may be dispensed with, if the totality of the evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists, and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly established.
Tan-Andal vs. Andal (G.R. No. 196359. May 11, 2021)
According to the Supreme Court, psychological incapacity is not a medical but a legal concept. It is a personal condition that prevents a spouse to perform marital obligations in relation to a specific person that may exist at the time of marriage but may have revealed through behavior subsequent to ceremonies. It need not be a mental or personality disorder. It need not be a permanent and incurable condition. The testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases. The totality of evidence must show clear and convincing evidence to cause the declaration of nullity of marriage.