(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to
the plaintiff. And
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 if 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 family
and
emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
(2) 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
mayphysical.
The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them,
was mentally or
psychically 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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 ensure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate,
bear and
raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.
(5) 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 theperson from really accepting and thereby complying with
the obligations
essential to 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. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code
Revision
Committeefrom Canon 1095 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."
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 evidence 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
eachother - 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.
(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
hisreasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the
petition. The
SolicitorGeneral, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to
the court such
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed
submitted for
resolution of thecourt. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent
function of the
defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.