---

G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997,
♦ Decision, Panganiban, [J]
♦ Separate Statement, Padilla, [J]
♦ Separate Statement, Romero, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Vitug, [J]

---

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997 ]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, RESPONDENTS.

SEPARATE STATEMENT

PADILLA, J.:

I concur in the result of the decision penned by Mr. Justice Panganiban but only because of the peculiar facts of the case. As to whether or not psychological incapacity exist in a given case calling for annulment of marriage, depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of the case. In Leouel Santos v. Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario-Bedia Santos, G.R. No. 112019, 4 January 1995, 240 SCRA 20-36, I maintained, and I still maintain, that there was psychological incapacity on the part of the wife to discharge the duties of a wife in a valid marriage. The facts of the present case, after an indepth study, do not support a similar conclusion. Obviously, each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. In the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is no “all fours” with another case. The trial judge must take pains in examining the factual millieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

---