Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina (1997): the Molina Guidelines

Roridel and her husband married in Manila in 1985 and had a son. Roridel said that after about a year her husband showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility": he preferred spending time and money with his friends, depended on his parents and was not honest with her about money. He blamed her own behavior. They had been living apart for more than three years.

Roridel asked the court to declare the marriage void under Article 36. Her evidence included her own testimony, two friends, a social worker and a psychiatrist. The trial court declared the marriage void and the Court of Appeals agreed. The Solicitor General, for the Republic, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Did the facts show psychological incapacity under Article 36, or only a marriage between two people who could not get along?

The Supreme Court granted the Republic's petition, set aside the lower courts' rulings and declared the marriage valid and subsisting.

The Court said the evidence showed "more of a 'difficulty,' if not outright 'refusal' or 'neglect'" in performing some marital duties. Irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities are not psychological incapacity. A spouse must be shown to be unable, not merely unwilling, to carry out the duties of marriage. The psychiatrist's testimony showed incompatibility, not an incurable psychiatric disorder.

The Court then laid down eight guidelines. In summary:

1. The spouse who files carries the burden of proof, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the marriage.
2. The root cause must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the petition, sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision.
3. The incapacity must exist at the time of the wedding.
4. It must be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
5. It must be grave enough to disable the spouse from the essential duties of marriage; mild quirks, mood changes and occasional outbursts are not enough.
6. The essential duties are those in Articles 68 to 71 (husband and wife) and Articles 220, 221 and 225 (parents and children) of the Family Code.
7. Decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church, while not binding, should be given great respect.
8. The prosecutor and the Solicitor General must take part, and the Solicitor General must issue a certification.

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 is an incapacity, not a mere difficulty, refusal or neglect; irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities do not qualify, and the person who files must prove it, with doubts resolved in favor of the marriage.

The Molina guidelines shaped Article 36 cases for more than 20 years. In practice, guideline 2 meant that many petitions needed a psychologist or psychiatrist to diagnose a spouse with a disorder.

In 2021, Tan-Andal v. Andal abandoned guideline 2 and said "incurable" is meant in the legal sense, not the medical sense. Tan-Andal also noted that guideline 8, the Solicitor General's certification, had been dispensed with under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Other ideas from Molina survive: the incapacity must exist at the time of the wedding, it must be serious, and difficulty or refusal is not incapacity.