Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    Republic V Molina

    Uploaded by

    jokuan
    Reynaldo Molina and Roridel Olaviano were married in 1985 and had one child together. Roridel filed for annulment of the marriage in 1990 citing Reynaldo's immaturity, irresponsibility with finances, and dependency on his parents. The trial court granted the annulment but the Court of Appeals affirmed the marriage. The Supreme Court then established guidelines for determining psychological incapacity, stating that mere conflicting personalities does not qualify and the incapacity must be medically identified and proven to be grave, existing at the time of marriage, and incurable. The Court ultimately concluded the marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo remained valid as conflicting personalities alone do not constitute psychological in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic V Molina

    Uploaded by

    jokuan
    59 views2 pages
    Reynaldo Molina and Roridel Olaviano were married in 1985 and had one child together. Roridel filed for annulment of the marriage in 1990 citing Reynaldo's immaturity, irresponsibility with finances, and dependency on his parents. The trial court granted the annulment but the Court of Appeals affirmed the marriage. The Supreme Court then established guidelines for determining psychological incapacity, stating that mere conflicting personalities does not qualify and the incapacity must be medically identified and proven to be grave, existing at the time of marriage, and incurable. The Court ultimately concluded the marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo remained valid as conflicting personalities alone do not constitute psychological in

    Original Title

    Republic v Molina

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Reynaldo Molina and Roridel Olaviano were married in 1985 and had one child together. Roridel filed for annulment of the marriage in 1990 citing Reynaldo's immaturity, irresponsibility with finances, and dependency on his parents. The trial court granted the annulment but the Court of Appeals affirmed the marriage. The Supreme Court then established guidelines for determining psychological incapacity, stating that mere conflicting personalities does not qualify and the incapacity must be medically identified and proven to be grave, existing at the time of marriage, and incurable. The Court ultimately concluded the marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo remained valid as conflicting personalities alone do not constitute psychological in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    Republic V Molina

    Uploaded by

    jokuan
    Reynaldo Molina and Roridel Olaviano were married in 1985 and had one child together. Roridel filed for annulment of the marriage in 1990 citing Reynaldo's immaturity, irresponsibility with finances, and dependency on his parents. The trial court granted the annulment but the Court of Appeals affirmed the marriage. The Supreme Court then established guidelines for determining psychological incapacity, stating that mere conflicting personalities does not qualify and the incapacity must be medically identified and proven to be grave, existing at the time of marriage, and incurable. The Court ultimately concluded the marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo remained valid as conflicting personalities alone do not constitute psychological in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    REPUBLIC VS. CA and MOLINA GR No. 108763.

    February 13, 1997


    FACTS:
    Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina on 14 April 1985 in Manila, and gave birth
    to a son a year after. Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility on
    the early stages of the marriage, observed from his tendency to spend time with
    his friends and squandering his money with them, from his dependency from his
    parents, and his dishonesty on matters involving his finances. Thereafter, Reynaldo
    was relieved of his job in 1986. Roridel became the sole breadwinner of the family. In March
    1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and proceeded to Baguio City. Reynaldo left
    her and their child a week later. The couple are separated-in-fact for more than three years.
    On 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage
    to Reynaldo Molina. Evidence for Roridel consisted of her own testimony, that of two of her
    friends, a social worker, and a psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical
    Center. Reynaldo did not present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial
    conference. On 14 May 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void.
    The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the
    appeals and affirmed in toto the RTCs decision. Hence, the present recourse.

    ISSUE:
    Whether opposing or conflicting personalities should be construed as psychological
    incapacity

    HELD:
    In Santos v. Court of Appeals, where psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a
    mental (not physical) incapacity, existing at the time the marriage is celebrated, and that
    there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
    psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
    demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
    marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence,
    and incurability. In the present case, 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 the guidelines in the
    interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, removing any visages of it
    being the most liberal divorce procedure in the world: (1) The burden of proof belongs to the
    plaintiff; (2) the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically
    identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by expert, and clearly explained in
    the decision; (3) The incapacity must be proven existing at the time of the celebration of
    marriage; (4) the incapacity must be clinically or medically permanent or incurable; (5) such

    illness must be grave enough; (6) the essential marital obligation must be embraced by
    Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as regards husband and wife, and Articles 220 to 225 of
    the same code as regards parents and their children; (7) interpretation made by the National
    Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church, and (8) the trial must order the fiscal
    and the Solicitor-General to appeal as counsels for the State. The Supreme Court granted
    the petition, and reversed and set aside the assailed decision; concluding that the marriage
    of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.

    You might also like