Republic vs Dagdag Topic: Psychological Incapacity Facts: On September 7, 1975 Erlinda Matias (16 years old) married Avelino

o Parangan Dagdag (20 years old) at the Iglesia Filipina Independent Church. They begot two children. A week after the wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation. He would disappear for months and then suddenly reappear. And when he was with his family, he would indulge in drinking sprees and would return home drunk. He would also force his wife to submit to sexual intercourse and if she refused, he would inflict her with physical injuries The last time he was seem by his family was on October 1993. She later learned that he was imprisoned but he escaped from jail on October 22, 1985. A certification was issued on February 14, 1990 issued by the Jail Warden declaring that Avelino was still at large July 3, 1990 -- Erlinda filed with the RTC petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage o Grounds: Psychological incapacity (Article 36) December 17, 1990 Erlinda presented her sister-in-law, Virginia as her only witness. o Virginia: Couple always quarreled and that Avelino never stayed long at the couples house. December 27, 1990 RTC rendered a decision declaring the marriage of Erlinda and Avelino void under Article 36 of the FC. January 29, 1990 investigating prosecutor filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment o Ground: decision was prematurely rendered since he was actually given until January 2 to manifest whether he was presenting controverting evidence OSGs motion for reconsideration was also denied o The fact that Avelino failed to support his family is a violation of essential marriage obligations under Article 68 of the FC o Defendants character traits existed at the time of marriage and became manifest only after the marriage The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC The OSG petitioned for review to the SC OSG: the psychological incapacity of Avelino is not of the nature contemplated by Article 236 Erlinda: Facts constituting psychological incapacity were proven by preponderance of evidence during trial

Issues: Whether or not the marriage was null and void under Article 36 of the FC, on the ground that the husband suffers from psychological incapacity as he is emotionally immature and irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive from justice Held: NO.

Erlinda failed to comply with the evidentiary requirements as stated in the Molina case. Requirements per Molina case: 1. Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff 2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts, and (d) clearly explained in the decision. It must be psychological and not physical, although the symptoms be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them was mentally or physically 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. 3. The incapacity (need not to be manifested but at least attached) must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of marriage 4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable 5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage 6. Non-complied marital obligations must be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision 7. Contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given persuasive but not controlling effect 8. Trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state Erlinda failed to comply with the second requirement requiring the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts No psychiatrist or doctor testified as to the incapacity Allegation that the husband is a fugitive was not sufficiently proven. The crime for which he was arrested for was not even alleged Investing prosecutor was not given opportunity to present evidence as the RTCs decision was premature Note: Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case (for the purpose of annulment of marriage) depends crucially on the facts of the case.