48. Mallilin vs.

Jamesolamin & Republic Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The Court has repeatedly stressed that
G.R. No. 192718. February 18, 2015.* psychological incapacity contemplates “downright incapacity or inability to take
  cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations,” not merely the
ROBERT F. MALLILIN, petitioner, vs. LUZ G. JAMESOLAMIN and the refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. —The alleged failure of Luz to assume her duties as a wife and as a mother, as
Civil Law; Family Law; Marriages; Annulment of Marriage; well as her emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and infidelity, cannot rise to
Psychological Incapacity; “Psychological incapacity,” as a ground to nullify a the level of psychological incapacity that justifies the nullification of the parties’
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a marriage. The Court has repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity
mental — not merely physical — incapacity that causes a party to be truly contemplates “downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed assume the basic marital obligations,” not merely the refusal, neglect or
and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. Indeed, to be
68 of the Family Code, among others, include their mutual obligations to live declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to
together; ob- perform one’s duties is another. Psychological incapacity refers only to the most
_______________ serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
*  SECOND DIVISION. 3
2 VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 3
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Sexual infidelity or perversion and
serve love, respect and fidelity; and render help and support. abandonment do not, by themselves, constitute grounds for declaring a marriage
—“Psychological incapacity,” as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 void based on psychological incapacity.—As correctly found by the CA, sexual
of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental — not merely physical infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not, by themselves, constitute
— incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity. Robert
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to argues that the series of sexual indiscretion of Luz were external manifestations
the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, among of the psychological defect that she was suffering within her person, which could
others, include their mutual obligations to live together; observe love, respect be considered as nymphomania or “excessive sex hunger.” Other than his
and fidelity; and render help and support. There is hardly a doubt that the allegations, however, no other convincing evidence was adduced to prove that
intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological these sexual indiscretions were considered as nymphomania, and that it was
incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly grave, deeply rooted, and incurable within the term of psychological incapacity
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and embodied in Article 36. To stress, Robert’s testimony alone is insufficient to
significance to the marriage. Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 prove the existence of psychological incapacity.
must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; To consider church annulments as
incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be additional grounds for annulment under Article 36 would be legislating from the
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be bench.—To consider church annulments as additional grounds for annulment
rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt under Article 36 would be legislating from the bench. As stated
manifestations may only emerge after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even in Republic  v. Court of Appeals and Molina, 268 SCRA 198 (1997),
if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. interpretations given by the NAMT of the Catholic Church in the Philippines are
given great respect by our courts, but they are not controlling or decisive.
Page 1 of 21
 Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Unless the evidence presented clearly Same; Same; Same; Same; View that the decisions of these tribunals must
reveals a situation where the parties, or one (1) of them, could not have validly be considered for their persuasive effect, especially in fulfillment of the intent
entered into a marriage by reason of a grave and serious psychological illness behind Article 36 of the Family Code “to harmonize our civil laws with the
existing at the time it was celebrated, the Court is compelled to uphold the religious faith [such that] . . . subject to our law on evidence[,] what is decreed
indissolubility of the marital tie.—In Republic v. Galang, 650 SCRA 524 as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.”—A declaration of
(2011), it was written that the Constitution set out a policy of protecting and nullity of marriage by the church requires two positive decisions to be executory
strengthening the family as the basic social institution, and the marriage was the — one by the first instance tribunal and another by the second instance tribunal.
foundation of the family. Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the This process, though not conclusive, warrants respect by this court. The
State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for declaration decisions of these tribunals must be considered for their persuasive effect,
of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies especially in fulfillment of the intent behind Article 36 of the Family Code “to
with the plaintiff. Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals a situation where harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith [such that] . . . subject to our
the parties, or one of them, could not have validly entered into a marriage by law on evidence[,] what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed
reason of a grave and serious psychological illness existing at the time it was civilly void.”
celebrated, the Court is compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie. 5
4 VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 5
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin Same; Same; Same; Same; View that the state, under the guise of
Leonen, J., Dissenting Opinion: protecting the marriage, should not force two (2) people to stay together, albeit
Civil Law; Family Law; Marriages; Annulment of Marriage; in paper, when they are incapable of complying with their essential marital
Psychological Incapacity; Medical Examination; View that in 2000, the Supreme obligations with each other.—The difficulty in obtaining a declaration of nullity
Court (SC) in Marcos v. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755, ruled that “if the totality of of marriage in this jurisdiction, so evident from our jurisprudence with only a
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, handful of granted petitions, reflects an absolute position taken by the state to
then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted contest all petitions until it reaches this court. The Constitution no doubt
to.”—In 2000, this court in Marcos v. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755, ruled that “if the mandates the state to protect the social institution that is marriage — the
totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological foundation of the family. However, the Constitution also mandates the state to
incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be defend “[t]he right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their
resorted to.” This court then issued A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC also known as the religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood[.]” In other
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of words, the right to family must be based on one’s own personal convictions. The
Voidable Marriages. This rule took effect on March 15, 2003. The rule provides state, under the guise of protecting the marriage, should not force two people to
that “[t]he complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are stay together, albeit in paper, when they are incapable of complying with their
indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the essential marital obligations with each other.
marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.” It also states that “[i]n case Same; Same; Same; Same; View that the state’s interest in any and all
mediation is not availed of or where it fails, the court shall proceed with the pre- marriages entered into by individuals should not amount to an unjustified
trial conference, on which occasion it shall consider the advisability of receiving intrusion into one’s right to autonomy and human dignity.—The Constitution
expert testimony and such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of describes marriage as “inviolable” while the law portrays it as a “permanent
the petition.” A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC thus codified the ruling in Marcos  that union.” Nevertheless, the state cannot insist on such permanence and
examination by a physician or psychologist is not a conditio sine qua non  for a inviolability per se under the pretense of its constitutional mandate to protect the
declaration of nullity of marriage. existence of every marriage. The state’s interest in any and all marriages entered
Page 2 of 21
into by individuals should not amount to an unjustified intrusion into one’s right In the complaint, Robert alleged that at the time of the celebration of their
to autonomy and human dignity. marriage, Luz was suffering from psychological and mental incapacity and
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the unpreparedness to enter into such marital life and to comply with its essential
Court of Appeals. obligations and responsibilities. Such incapacity became even more apparent
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. during their marriage when Luz exhibited clear manifestation of immaturity,
  Soriano, Araña, Seriña, Sarenas & Sarceno for petitioner. irresponsibility, deficiency of
  _______________
MENDOZA, J.:
1  Rollo, pp. 47-60, penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, and Associate
 
Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised 2  Id., at pp. 76-77.
Rules of Court assailing the November 20, 2009 3  Id., at p. 48.
6 7
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 7
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and its June 1, 2010 independent rational judgment, and inability to cope with the heavy and
Resolution,2 in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78303-MIN, which reversed and set oftentimes demanding obligation of a parent.
aside the September 20, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch Luz filed her Answer with Counterclaim contesting the complaint. She
37, Cagayan de Oro City (RTC-Br. 37), declaring the marriage between averred that it was Robert who manifested psychological incapacity in their
petitioner Robert F. Mallilin (Robert) and private respondent Luz G. marriage. Despite due notice, however, she did not appear during the trial.
Jamesolamin (Luz) null and void. Assistant City Prosecutor Isabelo Sabanal appeared for the State.
  When Robert testified, he disclosed that Luz was already living in
The Facts California, USA, and had married an American. He also revealed that when
  they were still engaged, Luz continued seeing and dating another boyfriend, a
Robert and Luz were married on September 6, 1972. They begot three (3) certain Lt. Liwag. He also claimed that from the outset, Luz had been remiss
children. in her duties both as a wife and as a mother as shown by the following
On March 16, 1994, Robert filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of circumstances: (1) it was he who did the cleaning of the room because Luz
marriage before the RTC, Branch 23, Cagayan de Oro City (RTC-Br. 23). On did not know how to keep order; (2) it was her mother who prepared their
March 7, 1996, RTC-Br. 23 denied the petition. Robert appealed this meal while her sister was the one who washed their clothes because she did
judgment before the CA where it was docketed as C.A.-G.R. CV No. 54261. not want her polished nails destroyed; (3) it was also her sister who took care
On January 29, 1999, the CA reversed the RTC-Br. 23 decision “due to lack of their children while she spent her time sleeping and looking at the mirror;
of participation of the State as required under Article 48 of the Family (4) when she resumed her schooling, she dated different men; (5) he received
Code.”3 The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings and its anonymous letters reporting her loitering with male students; (6) when he
records were thereafter transferred from RTC-Br. 23 to RTC-Br. 37, as the was not home, she would receive male visitors; (7) a certain Romy Padua
latter was designated as Family Court pursuant to the Family Code Act of slept in their house when he was away; and (8) she would contract loans
1997. without his knowledge.

Page 3 of 21
 In addition, Robert presented the testimony of Myrna Delos Reyes [her] of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant
Villanueva (Villanueva), Guidance Psychologist II of Northern Mindanao responsibilities.
Medical Center. _______________
On May 8, 2000, while the case was pending before the trial court, Robert
4  Id., at p. 47, penned by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Edgardo T. Lloren,
filed a petition for marriage annulment with the Metropolitan Tribunal of with Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.
First Instance for the Archdiocese of Manila (Metropolitan Tribunal). 9
On October 10, 2002, the Metropolitan Tribunal handed down a decision VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 9
declaring their marriage invalid ab initio on the ground of grave lack of due Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
discretion on the part of both x x x x
8 We commiserate with the plaintiff-appellee’s undeserved marital plight. Yet,
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Our paramount duty as a court compels Us to apply the law at all costs, however
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin harsh it may be on whomsoever is called upon to bear its unbiased brunt.
parties as contemplated by the second paragraph of Canon 1095. This FOR THESE REASONS, the appealed Decision dated September 20, 2002
decision was affirmed by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal in Civil Case No. 94-178 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.
(NAMT). SO ORDERED. 5

Prior to that, on September 20, 2002, the RTC had rendered a decision  
declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological Robert filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA in
incapacity on the part of Luz as she failed to comply with the essential its June 1, 2010 Resolution,6 stating that the arguments of Robert were mere
marital obligations. rehash of the same ground, arguments and discussion previously pointed out
The State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), by him, and that no new substance was brought out to warrant the
interposed an appeal with the CA. The OSG argued that Robert failed to reconsideration or reversal of its decision.
make a case for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Luz. It pointed out Hence, this petition.
that the real cause of the marital discord was the sexual infidelity of Luz. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS:
Such ground, the OSG contended, should not result in the nullification of the I
marriage under the law, but merely constituted a ground for legal separation. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS’ HOLDING THAT THE
The CA, in its November 20, 2009 Decision,4 granted the petition ABSENCE OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF THE WIFE
and reversed the RTC decision. The decision, including the decretal portion, UNDERSCORES THE EVIDENTIAL GAP TO SUSTAIN THE
partially reads: DECISION OF THE RTC DECLARING THE MARRIAGE OF
[W]e find that the trial court committed a reversible error. Closer scrutiny of PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NULL AND VOID ON THE GROUND
the records reveals, as correctly noted by the Solicitor General, sexual infidelity OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND
are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or JURISPRUDENCE.
_______________
unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. x x x.
x x x x 5  Id., at pp. 57-59.
In the case at bar, apart from his self-serving declarations, the evidence 6  Id., at p. 76.
adduced by Robert fell short of establishing the fact that at the time of their 10
marriage, Luz was suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived 10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Page 4 of 21
 Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin psychological defect which deprived her of the ability to assume the essential
II duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities.
THE RESPONDENT WIFE WAS ALSO DECLARED BY THE With regard to the findings of the Metropolitan Tribunal and the NAMT,
NATIONAL APPELLATE MATRIMONIAL TRIBUNAL OF the OSG claims that the same were only given persuasive value and were not
THE CATHOLIC BISHOP’S CONFERENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES controlling or decisive in cases of nullity of marriage. Further, the decision
AS GUILTY OF GRAVE LACK OF DUE DISCRETION. was based on grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning matrimonial
III rights and obligations due to outside factors other than psychological
THE RESPONDENT WIFE WAS ALSO FOUND BY THE LOWER incapacity as contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code. The OSG also
COURT AS PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY raises the strong possibility of collusion between the parties as shown by the
WITH THE ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS. events that took place after the issuance of the March 7, 1996 RTC Decision.
  The OSG wrote:
Robert now argues that he has sufficiently proven the nullity of his Significantly, the chronological events after the trial court issued its March 7,
marriage even in the absence of any medical, psychiatric or psychological 1996 Decision unmistakably show the collusion between the parties to obtain the
examination of the wife by a competent and qualified professional. To bolster reliefs pleaded. Among others, respondent’s Retraction of Testimony was
his claim, he avers that the Metropolitan Tribunal already declared that Luz executed without the presence of counsel sometime in 1998, a few months before
exhibited grave lack of discretion in judgment concerning the essential rights she married an American. This irregularity was even noticed by the Court of
and obligations mutually given and accepted in marriage. The said decision Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 54261:
was affirmed by the NAMT. x x x x
Robert further argues that the sexual indiscretion of Luz with different The involvement and active participation of the Solicitor General became
men coupled with the fact that she failed to function as a home maker to her indispensable, in the present recourse, when, in a whirlwind turn of events, the
family and as a housewife to him incapacitated her from accepting and Appellee made a VOLTE FACE executed a “Retraction of Testimony” and a
complying with her essential marital obligations. For said reason, he asserts “Waiver of Custody.” waiving custody of Franco Mark J. Mallillin, still a minor,
that the case of Luz was not a mere case of sexual infidelity, but clearly an her son by the
illness that was rooted on some debilitating psychological condition which 12

incapacitated her to carry out the responsibilities of a married woman. Robert 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
avers that a sex maniac is not just a mere sexual infidel but one who is Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
suffering from a deep psychological problem.  Appellant. It bears stressing that the Appellee, in the Court a quo, obdurately
11 denied the material allegations of the Appellant’s complaint and declared that it
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 11 was the Appellant who was psychologically incapacitated. The sudden
turnabout of the appellee, in the present recourse, to the extent of disowning
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
her testimony in the Court a quo  and even praying for the reversal of the
Position of the State
Decision of the Trial Court is strongly suggestive, if not constitutive, of
 
collusion or a modus vivendi  between the parties, outlawed by the Family
The OSG argues that the CA correctly ruled that the totality of evidence
Code of the Philippines and the Constitution. x x x
presented by Robert was not sufficient to support a finding that Luz was
 
psychologically incapacitated. His evidence fell short of establishing his
The Court’s Ruling
assertion that at the time of their marriage, Luz was suffering from a
 
Page 5 of 21
 The main issue is whether the totality of the evidence adduced proves that declaration of nullity of marriage, embodied in Republic v. Court of
Luz was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential Appeals and Molina,10 based on Article 36 of the Family Code. Thus:
obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
Article 36 of the Family Code. plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation
The petition is bereft of merit. of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. x x x.
A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is anchored on Article 36 x x x x
of the Family Code which provides: (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential _______________

marital obligation of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity

7  Republic v. De Gracia, G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014, 716 SCRA 8.
becomes manifest only after its solemnization. 8   Ligarde v. Patalinghug, G.R. No. 168796, April 15, 2010, 618 SCRA 315, 320-321.
  9   G.R. No. 159594, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 33, 42-43.
“Psychological incapacity,” as a ground to nullify a marriage under 10  335 Phil. 664, 676-678; 268 SCRA 198, 209-213.
Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental — not  
merely physical — incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of 14
the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
13 complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 13 decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin psychological — not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may
in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include their mutual be physical. x x x.
obligations to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render x x x x
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the
help and support. There is hardly a doubt that the intendment of the law has
celebration” of the marriage. x x x.
been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most
x x x x
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. 7
permanent or incurable. x x x.
Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be characterized
x x x x
by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild
out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts”
of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may cannot be accepted as root causes. x x x.
only emerge after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were x x x x
otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. 8 (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68
In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Eduardo C. De Quintos, Jr.,9 the up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles
Court reiterated the well-settled guidelines in resolving petitions for 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such

Page 6 of 21
non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by 11  Republic v. Encelan, G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013, 668 SCRA 215, 221.
evidence and included in the text of the decision. 12  Supra note 7.
16
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of
the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
be given great respect by our courts. x x x. Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
x x x x As correctly found by the CA, sexual infidelity or perversion and
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the abandonment do not, by themselves, constitute grounds for declaring a
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. x x x. marriage void based on psychological incapacity. Robert argues that the
15 series of sexual indiscretion of Luz were external manifestations of the
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 15 psychological defect that she was suffering within her person, which could be
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin considered as nymphomania or “excessive sex hunger.” Other than his
Guided by these pronouncements, the Court is of the considered view that allegations, however, no other convincing evidence was adduced to prove
Robert’s evidence failed to establish the psychological incapacity of Luz. that these sexual indiscretions were considered as nymphomania, and that it
First, the testimony of Robert failed to overcome the burden of proof to was grave, deeply rooted, and incurable within the term of psychological
show the nullity of the marriage. Other than his self-serving testimony, no incapacity embodied in Article 36. To stress, Robert’s testimony alone is
other evidence was adduced to show the alleged incapacity of Luz. He insufficient to prove the existence of psychological incapacity.
presented no other witnesses to corroborate his allegations on her behavior. In Sivino A. Ligeralde v. May Ascension A. Patalinghug and the Republic
Thus, his testimony was self-serving and had no serious value as evidence. of the Philippines,13 the Court ruled that the respondent’s act of living an
Second, the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity of Luz was adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a psychological
not medically or clinically identified, and sufficiently proven during the trial. disorder, especially when no specific evidence was shown that promiscuity
Based on the records, Robert failed to prove that her disposition of not was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage. The petitioner must
cleaning the room, preparing their meal, washing the clothes, and propensity be able to establish that the respondent’s unfaithfulness was a manifestation
for dating and receiving different male visitors, was grave, deeply rooted, and of a disordered personality, which made her completely unable to discharge
incurable within the parameters of jurisprudence on psychological incapacity. the essential obligations of the marital state.
The alleged failure of Luz to assume her duties as a wife and as a mother, Third, the psychological report of Villanueva, Guidance Psychologist II
as well as her emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and infidelity, cannot of the Northern Mindanao Medical Center, Cagayan de Oro City, was
rise to the level of psychological incapacity that justifies the nullification of insufficient to prove the psychological incapacity of Luz. There was nothing
the parties’ marriage. The Court has repeatedly stressed that psychological in the records that would indicate that Luz had either been interviewed or
incapacity contemplates “downright incapacity or inability to take was subjected to a psychological examination. The finding as to her
cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations,” not merely the psychological incapacity was based entirely on hearsay and the self-serving
refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant information provided by Robert.
spouse.11 Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing; Fourth, the decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal is insufficient to prove
to refuse or be reluctant to perform one’s duties is another. Psychological the psychological incapacity of Luz. Although it
incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of personality disorders _______________
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
13  Supra note 8 at p. 322.
and significance to the marriage.12 17
_______________
Page 7 of 21
 VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 17 proceedings completely for which she was duly cited for Contempt of Court —
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin and premised on the substantially concordant testimonies of the Witnesses, the
is true that in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,14 the woman Respondent demonstrated in the external forum through her action and
Court stated that interpretations given by the NAMT of the Catholic Church reaction patterns, before and after the marriage-in-fact, her grave lack of due
in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great discretion in judgment for marriage intents and purposes basically by reason of
respect by our courts, still it is subject to the law on evidence. Thus: her immaturity of judgment as manifested by her emotional ambivalence x x x.
Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to WHEREFORE, this COLLEGIAL COURT OF APPEALS, having invoked
harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason the Divine Name and having in mind the Law, the Jurisprudence and the Facts
that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to pertaining to the Case, hereby declares and decrees the confirmation of the
decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on nullity decision rendered by the Metropolitan Tribunal of First Instance for the
evidence — what is decreed as [canonically] invalid should be decreed civilly Archdiocese of Manila on the Marriage Case MALLILIN — JAMISOLAMIN
void x x x. (Emphasis supplied) with Prot. N. 63/2000 on the ground provided by Canon 1095 par. 2  CIC on
  the part of the woman Respondent — but NOT on the part of the man Petitioner
Pertinently, Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Evidence provides: for lack of evidence. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)15

The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.  
The purpose of which the evidence is offered must be specified. In Santos v. Court of Appeals,16 the Court referred to the deliberations
  during the sessions of the Family Code Revision Committee, which drafted
In this regard, the belated presentation of the decision of the NAMT the Code, to provide an insight on the import of Article 36 of the Family
cannot be given value since it was not offered during the trial, and the Court Code. It went out to state that a part of the provision is similar to the third
has in no way of ascertaining the evidence considered by the same tribunal. paragraph of Canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law, which reads:
_______________
Granting that it was offered and admitted, it must be pointed out that the
basis of the declaration of nullity of marriage by the NAMT was not the 15  Rollo, p. 83.
third paragraph of Canon 1095 which mentions causes of a psychological 16  310 Phil. 21, 37; 240 SCRA 20, 31-32 (1995).
nature similar to Article 36 of the Family Code, but the second 19
paragraph of Canon 1095 which refers to those who suffer from grave VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 19
lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
obligations to be mutually Canon 1095. The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
_______________ 1. those who lack sufficient use of reason;
2. those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning
14  Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 10 at p. 679; pp. 212-213. the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and
18
accepted;
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 3. those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin assume the essential obligations of marriage. (Emphasis and underscoring
given and accepted. For clarity, the pertinent portions of the NAMT supplied)
decision are as follows:  
The FACTS on the Case prove with the certitude required by law that based In Najera v. Najera,17 the Court was also confronted with a similar issue
on the deposition of the petitioner — the respondent understandably ignored the of whether to consider an annulment by the NAMT as also covering
Page 8 of 21
psychological incapacity, the only ground recognized in our law. In the said but later hotheaded even violent, he also was aware of the infidelity of his
case, the NAMT decision was also based on the second paragraph of Canon mother who now lives with her paramour, also married and a policeman; Finally,
1095. The Court ruled that it was not similar to, and only annulments into marriage, he continued with his drugs and alcohol abuse until one time he
under the third paragraph of, Canon 1095 should be considered. came home very drunk and beat up his wife and attacked her with a bolo that
Elucidating, the Court wrote: wounded her; this led to final separation.
Petitioner’s argument is without merit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court of Second Instance, having
In its Decision dated February 23, 2004, the Court of Appeals apparently did invoked the Divine Name and having considered the pertinent Law and relevant
not have the opportunity to consider the decision of the National Appellate Jurisprudence to the Facts of the Case hereby proclaims, declares and decrees
Matrimonial Tribunal. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Court of Appeals the confirmation of the sentence from the Court a quo in favor of the nullity
considered the Matrimonial Tribunal’s decision in its Resolution dated August 5, of marriage on the ground contemplated under Canon 1095, 2 of the 1983
2004 when it resolved petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. In the said Code of Canon Law.
Resolution, the Court of Appeals took cognizance of the very same issues now 21
raised before this Court and correctly held that petitioner’s motion for VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 21
reconsideration was devoid of merit. It stated: Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
The Decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal dated July 2, However, records of the proceedings before the Trial Court show that, other
2002, which than herself, petitioner-appellant offered the testimonies of the following persons
_______________ only, to wit: Aldana Celedonia (petitioner-appellant’s mother), Sonny de la Cruz
(member, PNP, Bugallon, Pangasinan), and Ma. Cristina R. Gates
17  609 Phil. 316, 336; 591 SCRA 541, 557-558 (2009), also citing Santos v. Court of (psychologist). Said witnesses testified, in particular, to the unfaithful night of
Appeals, id. July 1, 1994 wherein the respondent allegedly made an attempt on the life of the
  petitioner. But unlike the hearing and finding before the Matrimonial Tribunal,
20
petitioner-appellant’s sister-in-law and friends of the opposing parties were never
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED presented before said Court. As to the contents and veracity of the latter’s
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin testimonies, this Court is without any clue.
was forwarded to this Court only on February 11, 2004, reads as follows: True, in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals, et al. (268 SCRA 198), the
[T]he FACTS collated from party complainant and reliable witnesses which Supreme Court held that the interpretations given by the National Appellate
include a sister-in-law of Respondent (despite summons from the Court dated Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
June 14, 1999, he did not appear before the Court, in effect waiving his right to controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. However, the
be heard, hence, trial in absentia followed) corroborate and lead this Collegiate Highest Tribunal expounded as follows:
Court to believe with moral certainty required by law and conclude that the Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to
husband-respondent upon contracting marriage suffered from grave lack of harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason
due discretion of judgment, thereby rendering nugatory his marital that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to
contract: First, his family was dysfunctional in that as a child, he saw the decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on
breakup of the marriage of his own parents; his own two siblings have broken evidence — what is decreed as [canonically] invalid should be decreed civilly
marriages; Second, he therefore grew up with a domineering mother with whom void x x x.
[he] identified and on whom he depended for advice; Third, he was according to And in relation thereto, Rule 132, Sec. 34 of the Rules of Evidence states:
his friends, already into drugs and alcohol before marriage; this affected his The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
conduct of bipolar kind: he could be very quiet but later very talkative, peaceful The purpose of which the evidence is offered must be specified.
Page 9 of 21
 Given the preceding disquisitions, petitioner-appellant should not expect us VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 23
to give credence to the Decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
when, apparently, it was ter-in-law of Respondent (despite summons from the Court dated June 14,
22 1999, he did not appear before the Court, in effect waiving his right to be heard,
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED hence, trial in absentia followed) corroborate and lead this Collegiate Court to
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin believe with moral certainty required by law and conclude that the husband-
 made on a different set of evidence of which We have no way of respondent upon contacting marriage suffered from grave lack of due discretion
ascertaining their truthfulness. of judgment, thereby rendering nugatory his marital contract
Furthermore, it is an elementary rule that judgments must be based on the x x x.
evidence presented before the court. (Manzano v. Perez, 362 SCRA 430 [2001]) WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court of Second Instance, having
And based on the evidence on record, We find no ample reason to reverse or invoked the Divine Name and having considered the pertinent Law and relevant
modify the judgment of the Trial Court. [31] Jurisprudence to the Facts of the Case hereby proclaims, declares and decrees
Santos v. Santos  cited the deliberations during the sessions of the Family
18
the confirmation of the sentence from the Court a quo in favor of the nullity
Code Revision Committee, which drafted the Code, to provide an insight on the of marriage on the ground contemplated under Canon 1095, 2 of the 1983
import of Article 36 of the Family Code. It stated that a part of the provision is Code of Canon Law. x x x.
similar to the third paragraph of Canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law, which Hence, even if, as contended by petitioner, the factual basis of the decision of
reads: the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is similar to the facts established by
Canon 1095. The following are incapable of contracting marriage: petitioner before the trial court, the decision of the National Appellate
1. those who lack sufficient use of reason; Matrimonial Tribunal confirming the decree of nullity of marriage by the court a
2. those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning quo is not based on the psychological incapacity of respondent. Petitioner,
the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and therefore, erred in stating that the conclusion of Psychologist Cristina Gates
accepted; regarding the psychological incapacity of respondent is supported by the decision
3. those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal.
assume the essential obligations of marriage. In fine, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the Decision of the
It must be pointed out that in this case, the basis of the declaration of nullity RTC. (Emphases in the original; underscoring supplied)
of marriage by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is not the third  
paragraph of Canon 1095 which mentions causes of a psychological Hence, Robert’s reliance on the NAMT decision is misplaced. To repeat,
nature, but the second paragraph of Canon 1095 which refers to those who the decision of the NAMT was based on the second paragraph of Canon
suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential 1095 which refers to
matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. For 24
clarity, the pertinent portion of the decision of the National Appellate 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Matrimonial Tribunal reads: Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
The FACTS collated from party complainant and reliable witnesses which those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of
include a sis- judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be
_______________
mutually given and accepted, a cause not of psychological nature under
18  Santos v. Court of Appeals, supra note 16. Article 36 of the Family Code. A cause of psychological nature similar to
23

Page 10 of 21
Article 36 is covered by the third paragraph of Canon 1095 of the Code of In fine, the Court holds that the CA decided correctly. Petitioner Robert
Canon Law (Santos v. Court of Appeals),19 which for ready reference reads: failed to adduce sufficient and convincing evidence to prove the alleged
Canon 1095. The following are incapable of contracting marriage: psychological incapacity of Luz.
x x x x As asserted by the OSG, the allegations of the petitioner make a case for
3. those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to legal separation. Hence, this decision is without prejudice to an action for
assume the essential obligations of marriage. legal separation if a party would want to pursue such proceedings. In this
  disposition, the Court cannot decree a legal separation because in such
To hold that annulment of marriages decreed by the NAMT under the proceedings, there are matters and consequences like custody and separation
second paragraph of Canon 1095 should also be covered would be to expand of properties that need to be considered and settled.
what the lawmakers did not intend to include. What would prevent members WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
of other religious groups from invoking their own interpretation of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 78303-MIN, dated November 20, 2009, and its
psychological incapacity? Would this not lead to multiple, if not inconsistent, Resolution, dated June 1, 2010, are hereby AFFIRMED, without prejudice.
interpretations? No costs.
To consider church annulments as additional grounds for annulment SO ORDERED.
under Article 36 would be legislating from the bench. As stated Velasco, Jr.** and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.
in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,20 interpretations given by the Carpio (Chairperson), J., I join the dissent of J. Leonen.
NAMT of the Catholic Church in the Philippines are given great respect by Leonen, J., I dissent. See Separate Opinion.
our courts, but they are not controlling or decisive. _______________
In Republic v. Galang,21 it was written that the Constitution set out a
* * Designated acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special
policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic social
Order No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.
institution, and the marriage was the founda- 26
_______________
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
19  Id. Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
20  Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 10 at p. 679; p. 212.  
21  G.R. No. 168335, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 524, 543-544. DISSENTING OPINION
25  
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 25 LEONEN, J.:
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin  
tion of the family. Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the Petitioner Robert F. Mallilin (Robert) filed separate Petitions — one
State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for before our courts and another before the tribunals of the Catholic Church —
declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of to have his marriage with Luz G. Jamesolamin (Luz) declared void.
marriage lies with the plaintiff. Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals On September 20, 2002, the Regional Trial Court voided their marriage
a situation where the parties, or one of them, could not have validly entered after finding Luz to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
into a marriage by reason of a grave and serious psychological illness essential marital obligations.1
existing at the time it was celebrated, the Court is compelled to uphold the On October 10, 2002, the Metropolitan Tribunal of First Instance for the
indissolubility of the marital tie. Archdiocese of Manila (Metropolitan Tribunal) declared their marriage
Page 11 of 21
invalid ab initio “on the ground of the grave lack of due discretion on the marital duties.13 The church tribunals’ findings have persuasive effect, but
part of both parties[.]”2 The National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal these are not controlling.14 In any case, the church tribunals’ decisions
affirmed this declaration on April 8, 2003.3 anchored on “lack of discretion of judgment concerning matrimonial rights
Despite the declarations of nullity by both the trial court and the church and obligations [that] is due to outside factors other than a psychological
tribunals, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s Decision by incapacity as contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code.” 15
declaring the marriage valid and subsisting. 4 This prompted Robert’s appeal The Office of the Solicitor General also argues collusion, considering that
before this court.5 Luz had executed a Retraction of Testimony and Waiver of Custody 16 without
Robert submits that the trial court had considered all evidence before it the presence of counsel some-
ruled “that the totality of unrebutted and credible evidence showing the _______________
wife’s actions before and during the marriage leaves no doubt as to her
6   Id., at p. 286.
incapacity to act as wife. . . . Unfortunately, the Honorable Court of Appeals 7   Id., at pp. 289-290.
had comfortably substituted its own judgment for that of the trial court by 8   Id., at p. 289.
ruling that the absence of the psychological examination of the wife 9   Id., at p. 285.
underscores the evidential gap to sustain the 10  Id.
_______________ 11  Id., at p. 286.
12  Id., at p. 284.
1  Rollo, pp. 52-53. 13  Id., at pp. 212-213.
2  Id., at p. 68. 14  Id., at p. 217.
3  Id., at pp. 72-74. 15  Id., at p. 219.
4  Id., at p. 59. 16  Id., at pp. 201-204.
5  Id., at pp. 11-12. 28
27 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 27 Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin time in 1998, or a few months before she married an American. 17
Decision of nullity of marriage rendered by the RTC.” 6 Even the church The ponencia affirmed the Court of Appeals in setting aside the trial court
tribunals7 found Luz to be “suffering from Grave Lack of Discretion in Decision voiding the marriage. It found that Robert failed to prove Luz’s
Judgment concerning the essential rights and obligations mutually given and alleged psychological incapacity as to warrant a declaration of nullity of
accepted in marriage[.]”8 Robert refers to Luz’s sexual indiscretion with marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.18
different men and her failure to act as homemaker for her family as bases for I dissent.
her incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations. 9 He argues Preliminarily, the argument on collusion deserves no merit. The factual
that “nymphomania is much more than sexual infidelity, an illness rooted antecedents alleged that Robert filed the Complaint for declaration of nullity
within the body of a woman.”10 Luz was sexually involved not with one man, on March 16, 1994. The trial court denied the Complaint. Luz submitted a
but with several.11 She would even bring her paramour to their conjugal Retraction of Testimony and Waiver of Custody during the pendency of the
home, showing no sense of right or wrong.12 case before the Court of Appeals.19
The Office of the Solicitor General counters that Robert’s evidence failed On January 29, 1999, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court by
to establish that at the time of their marriage, Luz was suffering from a voiding the Complaint and Answer for failure to comply with Article 48 of
psychological disorder depriving her of the ability to assume the essential the Family Code on collusion. The case was remanded to the designated

Page 12 of 21
family court. The lower court then rendered the September 20, 2002 Decision the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged
voiding the marriage of Robert and Luz.20 by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family
Thus, the issue on collusion was already addressed when the case was Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
remanded to the trial court, and the city prosecutor would be furnished a copy fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the
of the Complaint and Answer. This complies now with Article 48 of the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological
Family Code: incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of demonstrative of an utter insensitivity
_______________
marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to
appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the 21  See Republic v. Galang, G.R. No. 168335, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 524, 535-538
parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
_______________ 22  310 Phil. 21; 240 SCRA 20 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
30
17  Id., at pp. 219-220.
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
18  Ponencia, p. 25.
19  Id., at pp. 200-201. Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
20  Id., at pp. 205-206. or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This
29 psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 29 celebrated.  (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
23

Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin  

In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be Two years later, this court in Republic v. Court of Appeals
based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. and Molina24 listed specific guidelines when interpreting and applying Article
  36 of the Family Code:
Psychological incapacity (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
guidelines 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
Examining the development of jurisprudence21 interpreting Article 36 of that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity
the Family Code will lead to Santos v. Court of Appeals 22 as the first case of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family,
attempting to lay down standards for the concept of “psychological recognizing it “as the foundation of the nation.” It decrees marriage as legally
incapacity.” The marriage in Santos was declared valid and subsisting for “inviolable,” thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties.
failure to meet the following characteristics: Both the family and marriage are to be “protected” by the state.
Justice Sempio-Diy cites with approval the work of Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family
former Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
Archdiocese of Manila (Branch I), who opines that psychological incapacity (2) The root cause  of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or
must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. . . . requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical, although its
. . . . Thus correlated, “psychological incapacity” should refer to no less than manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince
a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such

Page 13 of 21
an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, 32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
or knowing them, could not have given valid as Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
_______________ (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
23  Id., at pp. 39-40; p. 34.
220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such
24  335 Phil. 664; 268 SCRA 198 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
31 non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 31 evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
sumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should
here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle be given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the
of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon
psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:
evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. “The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological
celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was nature.”
existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to
illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason
attached at such moment, or prior thereto. that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on evidence —
permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.
in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the
same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given
marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church — while remaining
exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be independent, separate and apart from each other — shall walk together in
effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage
them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise and the family as the inviolable base of the nation.  (Emphasis in the original,
25

his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage. citations omitted)

_______________
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild 25   Id., at pp. 676-679; pp. 209-213. The eighth guideline on the certification from the
characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” Solicitor General briefly stating his or her reasons for agreeing or opposing the Petition for
cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright declaration of nullity
incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In 33
other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 33
adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations  
essential to marriage. This court has since applied the Molina guidelines in deciding cases for
32 declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity. 26 In all
Page 14 of 21
psychological incapacity cases resolved from 1997 to 2009 applying conducted on Luz. In any event, the reversal of the trial court’s finding of
the Molina guidelines, only psychological incapacity cannot hinge on this lack of examination.
_______________ In 2000, this court in Marcos v. Marcos31 ruled that “if the totality of
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
 of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity has been dispensed with under
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Re: Proposed Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages). See Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, 612 be resorted to.”32
Phil. 1061, 1078; 596 SCRA 157, 175-177 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; Navales This court then issued A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC also known as the Rule on
v. Navales, 578 Phil. 826, 839; 556 SCRA 272, 286-288 (2008) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Third Division]; Tongol v. Tongol, 562 Phil. 725, 735; 537 SCRA 135, 143-144 (2007)
Voidable Marriages. This rule took effect on March 15, 2003.
[Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division]; Antonio v. Reyes, 519 Phil. 337, 358; 484 SCRA
353, 373-375 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division]; and Carating-Siayngco v. Siayngco, 484 The rule provides that “[t]he complete facts should allege the physical
Phil. 396, 410; 441 SCRA 422, 433-435 (2004) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division]. manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the
26  Navales v. Navales, id., at pp. 840-842; p. 290; Navarro, Jr. v. Cecilio-Navarro, 549 time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be
Phil. 632, 639-640; 521 SCRA 121, 128 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second alleged.”33 It also states
Division]; Tongol v. Tongol, id., at pp. 732-735; p. 142; Republic v. Tanyag-San Jose, 545
_______________
Phil. 725; 517 SCRA 123 (2007) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Second Division]; Antonio v.
Reyes, id., at pp. 356-358; p. 366; Republic v. Iyoy, 507 Phil. 485, 498-500; 470 SCRA 508,
27  Antonio v. Reyes, supra note 25.
524 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division]; Republic v. Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No.
28  Another case where the parties successfully obtained a decree of nullity of marriage
149498, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 735, 740-742 [Per J. Corona, Third Division]; Ancheta v.
due to psychological incapacity is Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 294; 266
Ancheta, 468 Phil. 900, 915-916; 424 SCRA 725, 729 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second
SCRA 324 (1997) [Per J. Torres, Jr., Second Division]. However, Chi Ming Tsoi was not
Division]; Choa v. Choa, 441 Phil. 175, 186-187; 392 SCRA 641, 656 (2002)
decided under the Molina guidelines. This court had yet to promulgate Molina when Chi
[Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; Pesca v. Pesca, 408 Phil. 713, 719-720; 356 SCRA 588,
Ming Tsoi was decided.
591 (2001) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division]; Republic v. Dagdag, 404 Phil. 249, 256-259; 351
29  Rollo, p. 260.
SCRA 425, 427 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil.
30  Id., at pp. 265 and 267.
840, 847-850; 343 SCRA 755, 764 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; Hernandez v.
31  Marcos v. Marcos, supra note 26.
Court of Appeals, 377 Phil. 919, 932; 320 SCRA 76, 84 (1999) [Per J. Mendoza, Second
32  Id., at p. 850; p. 764.
Division].
33  Void and Voidable Marriages Rule, Sec. 2(d).
34
35
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 35
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
the parties in Antonio v. Reyes27 were found to have complied with all the that “[i]n case mediation is not availed of or where it fails, the court shall
requirements of Molina.28 proceed with the pretrial conference, on which occasion it shall consider the
  advisability of receiving expert testimony and such other matters as may aid
Medical, psychiatric, or in the prompt disposition of the petition.”34
psychological examination A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC thus codified the ruling in Marcos that
  examination by a physician or psychologist is not a conditio sine qua non for
Luz did not appear during trial.29 Robert disclosed that she was already a declaration of nullity of marriage.35
living in California, USA and was married to an American. 30 This can explain In 2010, this court voided the marriage in Camacho-Reyes v.
why no medical, psychiatric, or psychological examination could be Reyes36 discussing that “[t]he lack of personal examination and interview of

Page 15 of 21
the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does Q: As you said in your recommendation, Mr. Mallilin is psychologically
not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors [and] [n]either do their incapacitated to carry out responsibility with the emotional infantile and
findings automatically constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion immature, egocentric and mother dependence?
as evidence.”37 A: In our psychological examination, there is said stress in him as a person as
Thus, the psychological report of Myrna de los Reyes Villanueva, a that of the child, the ego, the adult, the parents, what is dominant traits in person,
Guidance Psychologist II of the Northern Mindanao Medical Center in what behavior appear when I say youth, the individual display more on a child
Cagayan de Oro,38 cannot be considered hearsay on the ground that Luz was on him, it is the child who is concern with the feeling or reaction, if the person
not interviewed and examined. A marriage involves two persons only. react more incapable impulses that is distracted, he is more of infantile than
adult, in the case of Robert Malillin if we cite, he related to me that he is having
Necessarily, these two are in the best position to testify on the other’s
some affairs with
behavior during their marriage. Put in this context, Robert’s testimony cannot
_______________
be disregarded for being self-serving.
In any event, Myrna de los Reyes Villanueva administered five tests 39 on HTP – to protect the client’s orientation to society and ability to realize it. . . .
Robert before concluding that “Robert Mallilin LCT – the client is asked to arrange the color cards. The objective is to determine client’s
_______________ monetary stress, roaming wishes, and conflicts. . . .
IQ – to tap the client’s intellectual function. . . .
34  Void and Voidable Marriages Rule, Sec. 14(b). BVMGT – to determine the client’s perceptual ability, a projective tool to determine the
35  Marcos v. Marcos, supra note 26 at p. 842; p. 757. client’s emotional dynamics, preoccupation, inferiority, and immaturity. . . .
36  G.R. No. 185286, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 461 [Per J. Nachura, Second 40  Id., at p. 266A, citing TSN, May 7, 2001, p. 10.
Division]. 37
37  Id., at p. 487. VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 37
38  Rollo, p. 266. Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
39  Id. Petitioner, in his Memorandum, enumerated the tests:
some women so I can see that he is quite speaking of nature and individual
DAP – the client is asked to draw a person. The objective is to know the client’s inner
side, and his emotional dynamics. . . . getting through serious responsibilities of married life.
36 Q: Since you stated that you have interviewed this Robert Mallilin, several
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED incidents, have you talk matters regarding his wife?
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin A: Yes, he told me that the wife had several affairs in fact, there was a short
[sic] is psychologically incapacitated to [c]arry out the responsibility of doubt of his first son because upon learning that he offered marriage, the woman
married life especially with an individual who is equally emotionally infertile refused and that fuel his doubt later because he learns that the woman is with
another guys and he said that woman contracting loans without his knowledge
and immature[.]”40 Robert quoted Myrna de los Reyes Villanueva’s testimony
and the woman is not even taking care of the child.
as follows:
Q: Considering that Mr. Mallilin had dispute with his wife, he would say that
Q: Can you explain to the court what is your recommendation?
the wife is infantile and immature?
A: He is emotionally infantile and immature considering also that he is of age
A: The transaction is the same because they were both child and the child
and as there is chronological age responsibility, we have profound emotional
here has no decision made then there is nothing to reach up.
quotation chronologically. In one of my interview with client, he manifested that
Q: Base on your observation with this case Mallilin is infantile and
he was left out that most have created the vacuum. . . . oftentimes in his
immature?
relationship with woman, he would look for a woman, more or less has a mother
figure.

Page 16 of 21
 A: Both parties were infantile, immature, what would happen, just imagine emotional  ambivalence and affective instability that were sufficiently
two children living, what would be the relationship of the husband and wife, evidenced by the three following more salient factors in the Case which are de
they would keep on challenging each other.  (Emphasis supplied)
41
officio abbreviated and generalized for judicial prudence in deference [to] her
  person: One, THAT the Respondent already practiced a
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal interpretations fundamental ambivalence in her emotional con-
  _______________
The ponencia discussed that the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
43  Id.
Decision was not offered during trial as required under Rule 132, Section 34 44  Rollo, pp. 287-288.
of the Rules of Court.42 45  Id., at p. 68.
_______________ 39
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 39
41  Id., at pp. 266A-267, quoting TSN, May 7, 2001, pp. 11-14.
42  Ponencia, p. 17.
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
38
stitution by engaging in multiple carnal attachements [sic] at an early
age. Two, THAT the Respondent was in effect ultimately rendered pregnant by
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the Petitioner when she was but nineteen years old. Three, THAT
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
the Respondent after her de facto  marriage with the Petitioner demonstrated
The ponencia added that even if the National Appellate Matrimonial
her affective instability by entertaining as well several carnal relationships  that
Tribunal Decision was considered, this was based on the second paragraph of
finally terminated the union of some fourteen years that were punctuated by
Canon 1095 on grave lack of discretion and not the third paragraph, which
several temporary separations and that brought to life no less than three children.
was similar to Article 36 of the Family Code.43
As to the matter of the relatively long time frame of the union, it should be noted
Robert could not have offered the church tribunal rulings during trial that just as the mere passage of time does not nullify an ab initio valid marriage,
since the trial court had rendered its Decision on September 20, 2002, or neither does it ipso facto validate an ab initio null and void marriage. As to the
before the Metropolitan Tribunal rendered its Decision on October 10, 2002. 44 question of the number of children born of the union, just as there are valid
The Metropolitan Tribunal’s Decision even included a restrictive clause marriages without children, the[re] are invalid marriages with children. The
“to the effect that neither of the parties may enter into another marriage presence of children from a union directly prove biological potency on the part
without the express permission of this tribunal, in deference to the sanctity of both the Parties in Causa — not necessarily their tenure of due discretion in
and dignity of the sacrament as well as for the protection of the intended judgement for marriage.  (Emphasis supplied)
46

spouse.”45 The National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal confirmed this  

nullity Decision, discussing its findings as follows: On Canon 1095, the marriage in Antonio v. Reyes47 was also annulled by
The FACTS on the Case prove with the certitude required by law that based the Metropolitan Tribunal. That marriage was affirmed with modification by
on the deposition of the Petitioner — the Respondent understand[a]bly ignored the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal,48 finding that “respondent was
the proceedings completely for which she was duly cited for Contempt of Court impaired by a lack of due discretion.”49 This court discussed that:
— and premised on the substantially concordant testimonies of the Witnesses, Of particular notice has been the citation of the Court, first in Santos then
the woman Respondent demonstrated in the external forum through her action in Molina, of the considered opinion of canon law experts in the interpretation of
and reaction patterns,  before and after the marriage-in-fact, her grave lack of psychological incapacity. This is but unavoidable, considering that the Family
due discretion in judgment for marriage intents and purposes basically Code committee had bluntly acknowledged that the concept of psychological
by  reason of her immaturity of judgment as manifested by her incapacity
Page 17 of 21
_______________ Najera v. Najera51 came three years later and differentiated the second and
third paragraphs of Canon 1095. This court discussed how Article 36 of the
46  Id., at pp. 73-74.
47  Antonio v. Reyes, supra note 25.
Family Code was based on the third paragraph of Canon 1095 as a ground
48  Id., at p. 346; p. 363. and not the second paragraph:52
49  Id., at p. 347; id. Canon 1095. The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
40 1. those who lack sufficient use of reason;
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 2. those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and
was derived from canon law, and as one member admitted, enacted as a accepted;
solution to the problem of marriages already annulled by the Catholic Church 3. those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to
but  still existent  under civil law. It would be disingenuous to disregard the assume the essential obligations of marriage.  (Emphasis supplied)
53

influence of  Catholic Church doctrine in the formulation and  

subsequent understanding of Article 36, and the Court has expressly The facts of Najera are not in point. In Najera, the trial court considered
acknowledged that interpretations given by the National Appellate the evidence presented and decreed only the legal separation of the parties,
Matrimonial Tribunal of the local Church, while not controlling or decisive, and not annulment of the marriage. 54 The Court of Appeals no longer
should  be given great respect by our courts.  Still, it must be emphasized that considered the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal’s Decision since “it
the Catholic Church is hardly the sole source of influence in the interpretation of was made on a different set of evidence of which [w]e have no way of
Article 36. Even though the concept may have been derived from canon law, its ascertaining their truthfulness . . . [a]nd based on the evidence on record,
incorporation into the Family Code and subsequent judicial interpretation [w]e find no ample reason to reverse or modify the judgment of the Trial
occurred in wholly secular progression. Indeed, while Church thought on
Court.”55
psychological incapacity is merely persuasive on the trial courts, judicial
On the other hand, both the trial court and the National Appellate
decisions of this Court interpreting psychological incapacity are binding on
Matrimonial Tribunal voided the marriage between Robert and Luz.
lower courts.
Assuming the two tribunals considered different sets of evidence, they
....
nevertheless reached the same conclusion of declaring the nullity of the
As noted earlier, the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila
decreed the invalidity of the marriage in question in a Conclusion dated 30 marriage.
_______________
March 1995, citing the “lack of due discretion” on the part of respondent. Such
decree of nullity was affirmed by both the National Appellate Matrimonial 51  609 Phil. 316; 591 SCRA 541 (2009) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
Tribunal, and the Roman Rota of the Vatican. In fact, respondent’s psychological 52  Id., at pp. 335-336; p. 559.
incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was appended to the 53  Id., at p. 335; id.
sentence of nullity prohibiting respondent from contracting another marriage 54  Id., at pp. 324-325; p. 543.
55  Id., at p. 334; p. 559.
without the Tribunal’s consent.  (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
50

_______________ 42
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
50  Id., at pp. 353-366; pp. 382-383. Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
41 A declaration of nullity of marriage by the church requires two positive
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 41 decisions to be executory — one by the first instance tribunal and another by
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin the second instance tribunal.56 This process, though not conclusive, warrants
Page 18 of 21
respect by this court. The decisions of these tribunals must be considered for In 2010, Suazo v. Suazo66 explained that Ngo Te “stands for a more
their persuasive effect, especially in fulfillment of the intent behind Article flexible approach in considering petitions for declaration of nullity of
36 of the Family Code “to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith marriages based on psychological incapacity” 67 and upholds an evidentiary
[such that] . . . subject to our law on evidence[,] what is decreed as approach:
canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.” 57 By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and
In the end, every case filed on Article 36 of the Family Code requiring an burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as
application of the Molina guidelines must be considered on a case-to-case decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental
basis.58 temperaments of the parties.
  ....
Flexible Molina guidelines Hernandez v. Court of Appeals  emphasizes the importance of presenting
  expert testimony to establish the precise cause of a party’s psychological
In 2009, this court in Ngo Te v. Gutierrez Yu-Te59 voided Kenneth and incapacity, and to show that it existed at the inception of the marriage. And
as Marcos v. Marcos  asserts, there is no requirement that the person to be
Rowena’s marriage on the ground of their psychological incapacity. This
declared psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a physician, if
court observed how “[t]he resiliency with which the concept [of
the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
psychological incapacity] should be applied and the case-to-case basis by
incapacity. Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between
which the provision should be interpreted, as so intended by its framers, had,
the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder
somehow, been rendered ineffectual by the imposition of a set of strict
itself.
standards in Molina[.]”60 This court expressed fear that Molina became a _______________
straitjacket for all subsequent Article 36 cases. 61
_______________ 62  Id., at p. 699; p. 228.
63  Id.
56  See Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines website 64  601 Phil. 676; 582 SCRA 694 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
<http://www.cbcponline.net/commissions/tribunal.html> (visited February 11, 2015). 65  Id., at p. 692; p. 709.
57  Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 679; 268 SCRA 198, 212-213 (1997) 66  629 Phil. 157; 615 SCRA 154 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
[Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]. 67  Id., at p. 179; p. 173.
58  Antonio v. Reyes, supra note 25.  
59  598 Phil. 666; 579 SCRA 193 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]. 44
60  Id., at p. 692; p. 220. 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
61  Id., at p. 696; p. 224.
43
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
This is not to mention, but we mention nevertheless for emphasis, that the
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 43
presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a  grave,
This court in Ngo Te was clear in “not suggesting the abandonment
severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.  (Emphasis in the
68

of Molina[,]”62 but stressed how “courts should interpret the provision on a

original, citation omitted)
case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the findings of experts and
 
researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church
Since Ngo Te, it appears that only the parties in Azcueta v.
tribunals.”63 Ting v. Velez-Ting64 promulgated a month after Ngo Te suggested
Republic,69 Halili v. Santos-Halili,70 Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes,71 and Aurelio v.
a “relaxation of the stringent requirements”65 laid down in Molina.
Aurelio72 obtained a decree of nullity of their marriage under Article 36.
Page 19 of 21
 The difficulty in obtaining a declaration of nullity of marriage in this The notion of “permanent” is not a characteristic that inheres without a
jurisdiction, so evident from our jurisprudence with only a handful of granted purpose. The Family Code clearly provides for the purpose of entering into
petitions, reflects an absolute position taken by the state to contest all marriage, that is, “for the establishment of conjugal and family
petitions until it reaches this court. life.”78 Consequently, the state’s interest in protecting the marriage must
The Constitution no doubt mandates the state to protect the social anchor on ensuring a sound conjugal union capable of maintaining a healthy
institution that is marriage — the foundation of the family. However, the environment for a family, resulting in a more permanent union. The state’s
Constitution also mandates the state to defend “[t]he right of spouses to interest cannot extend to forcing two individuals to stay within a destructive
found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the marriage.
demands of responsible parenthood[.]”73 In other words, the right to family The Family Code provides that the “nature, consequences, and incidents
must be based on one’s own personal convictions. The state, under the guise [of marriage] are governed by law and not subject to stipulation,” 79 but this
of protecting the marriage, should not force two people to stay together, does not go as far as reaching into the choices of intimacy inherent in human
albeit in paper, when they are incapable of complying with their essential relations. These
marital obligations with each other. _______________
_______________
74  Antonio v. Reyes, supra note 25 at p. 355; p. 372.
68  Id., at pp. 179-180; pp. 173-174. 75  Const., Art. XV, Sec. 2.
69  606 Phil. 177, 199; 588 SCRA 196, 216 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First 76  Family Code, Art. 1.
Division]. 77  Const., Art. II, Sec. 11 provides that “[t]he State values the dignity of every human
70  607 Phil. 1, 8; 589 SCRA 25, 28 (2009) [Per J. Corona, Special First Division]. person and guarantees full respect for human rights.”
71  G.R. No. 185286, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 461, 495 [Per J. Nachura, Second 78  Family Code, Art. 1.
Division]. 79  Id.
72  G.R. No. 175367, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 561, 564 [Per J. Peralta, Second Division]. 46
73  Const., Art. XV, Sec. 3(1). 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
45 Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 45 choices form part of autonomy, protected by the liberty 80 and human
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin dignity81 clauses. Human dignity includes our choices of association, and we
Right to family are as free to associate and identify as we are free not to associate or identify.
  Our choices of intimate partners define us — inherent ironically in our
In Antonio v. Reyes, this court discussed that “the Constitution itself does individuality. Consequently, when the law speaks of the nature,
not establish the parameters of state protection to marriage as a social consequences, and incidents of marriage governed by law, this refers to
institution and the foundation of the family.”74 responsibility to children, property relations, disqualifications, privileges, and
The Constitution describes marriage as “inviolable” 75 while the law other matters limited to ensuring the stability of society. The state’s interest
portrays it as a “permanent union.”76 Nevertheless, the state cannot insist on should not amount to unwarranted intrusions into individual liberties.
such permanence and inviolability per se under the pretense of its Since the state’s interest must be toward the stability of society, the
constitutional mandate to protect the existence of every marriage. The state’s notion of psychological incapacity should not only be based on a medical or
interest in any and all marriages entered into by individuals should not psychological disorder, but should consist of the inability to comply with
amount to an unjustified intrusion into one’s right to autonomy and human essential marital obligations such that public interest is imperiled.
dignity.77
Page 20 of 21
 The Molina guidelines provide that church tribunal decisions have Although expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the
persuasive effect on our courts. Nevertheless, the notion of “psychological psychological temperament of parties are usually given considerable weight
incapacity” should not be religious. None of our laws should be based on any by the courts, the existence of psychological incapacity must still be proven
religious law, doctrine, or teaching. We are a secular state. The separation of by independent evidence. (Republic vs. De Gracia, 716 SCRA 8 [2014])
state and church must at all times be inviolable. 82 ——o0o——
The state protects the family by not forcing its structure; otherwise, there
will be “broken families.” The Constitution does not define “family,” but
characterizes it as “the basic autonomous social institution.”83 The state
should encourage all family arrangements, whether or not borne out of love
or “in love.” The presumption should be in favor of choices.
_______________

80  Const., Art. III, Sec. 1 states that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.”
81  Const., Art. II, Sec. 11.82  Const., Art. II, Sec. 6.
83  Const., Art. II, Sec. 12.
47
VOL. 751, FEBRUARY 18, 2015 47
Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin
Thus, when both husband and wife, the trial court that considered
firsthand all evidence presented, as well as two levels of church tribunals,
have all determined without reservation that one or both of the parties are
incapable of complying with the essential marital obligations, or gravely lack
the discretion of judgment regarding these marital obligations, the state must
be open to the possibility that there was never a marriage as contemplated by
the Constitution and law to protect.
Under these conditions, there is no interest, public or private, to protect in
the continued declaration of the existence of a marriage. If at all, the couple
now separated and living their own lives are imposed with an unjust burden
of a false status. This is pure and simple cruelty.
Accordingly, I vote to grant the Petition.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—Sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling,
even if true, do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity; these are
simply grounds for legal separation. (Republic vs. Encelan, 688 SCRA 215
[2013])

Page 21 of 21