Bautista, Jr. v. Republic

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243899. June 10, 2019.]

VIRGILIO M. BAUTISTA, JR., petitioner-appellee, vs.ROSALINA * M. SORIANO, respondent,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243899 — VIRGILIO M. BAUTISTA, JR., petitioner-appellee, versus ROSALINA M. SORIANO, respondent; REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

After a thorough examination of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition 1 and affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA). In Republic v. Mola Cruz, 2 the Court explained:

"[P]sychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. 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. x x x. HTcADC

Further, "x x x psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them x x x." 3

The CA found that based on the Report and contrary to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)'s Decision, petitioner failed to sufficiently prove the 1) gravity, 2) juridical antecedence or root cause, and 3) incurability of his alleged psychological incapacity in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the landmark case of Republic v. Molina. 4 Hence, the CA correctly denied the appeal. CAIHTE

SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave)"

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Spelled as "Rosalinda" in some parts of the rollo.

1. Rollo, pp. 12-34.

2. G.R. No. 236629, July 23, 2018, accessed at <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64585>.

3. Id.

4. Rollo, p. 44. See also Republic v. Mola Cruz, id., citing Republic v. Molina, 335 Phil. 664 (1997). The Court held in Mola Cruz:

   Jurisprudence consistently adhered to the guidelines in appreciating psychological incapacity cases set in Molina. We quote the fairly recent iteration of the guidelines in Republic v. Pangasinan for reference:

   x x x [P]sychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. Thereafter, in Molina, the Court laid down more definitive guidelines in the disposition of psychological incapacity cases, to wit:

   (1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.

   (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by expe[r]ts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.

   (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.

   (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. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

   (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.

   (8) 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, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.

   In sum, a person's psychological incapacity to comply with his or her essential obligations, as the case may be, in marriage roust be rooted on a medically or clinically identifiable grave illness that is incurable and shown to have existed at the time of marriage, although the manifestations thereof may only be evident after marriage. x x x.