[Azalea M] Case for Article 8 of the Civil Code Article 8.

Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. Ting vs Velez-Ting !""#$ %As of the moment & can't find my photocopy of this case and the (C)A reference is not stated in the list that was given to us.* NACHURA, J.: FACTS AC!"R#UN$. After +eing married for more than ,8 years- Carmen filed a verified petition +efore the )TC of Ce+u City praying for the declaration of nullity of their marriage +ased on Article ./ of the 0amily Code. (he claimed that 1en2amin suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of the cele+ration of their marriagewhich- however- only +ecame manifest thereafter. &n sum- Carmen's allegations of 1en2amin's psychological incapacity consisted of the following manifestations3 ,. !. .. 1en2amin's alcoholism- which adversely affected his family relationship and his profession- as an anesthesiologist4 1en2amin's violent nature +rought a+out +y his e5cessive and regular drin6ing4 7is compulsive gam+ling ha+it- as a result of which 1en2amin found it necessary to sell the family car twice and the property he inherited from his father in order to pay off his de+ts- +ecause he no longer had money to pay the same4 and 1en2amin's irresponsi+ility and immaturity as shown +y his failure and refusal to give regular financial support to his family.

8.

To support her claim- Carmen presented 9r. Trinidad-:;ate- a psychiatrist- +ut instead of the usual personal interview- however- 9r. :;ate's evaluation of 1en2amin was limited to the transcript of stenographic notes ta6en during 1en2amin's deposition +ecause the latter had already gone to wor6 as an anesthesiologist in a hospital in (outh Africa. After reading the transcript of stenographic notes- 9r. :;ate concluded that 1en2amin's compulsive drin6ing- compulsive gam+ling and physical a+use of respondent are clear indications that petitioner suffers from a personality disorder. <ith the given facts- the regional trial court- on January #- ,##8- rendered its decision declaring the marriage of 1en2amin and Carmen null and void pursuant to the article ./ of the 0amily code. The aggrieved party- 1en2amin- appealed to the Court of Appeals and on :cto+er ,#- !""" rendered its decision reversing the decision of )TC. The CA states that %delete this3 there* is no proof was a+ducted %o+tained=* to support the conclusion with %of* 9r. Trinidad-:;ate's statement for it was only +ased on theories and not on facts- which is contrary to the guidelines set forth in the (antos vs Court of Appeals and )ep. of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals and >olina. 1ut Carmen appealed on the grounds

that the filing of her case came +efore the >olina case- which was only decided on 0e+ruary ,.- ,##?- so it cannot +e applied retroactively- as it would run counter to the principle of stare decisis. 1ut in a resolution dated >arch @- the CA was directed to resolve Carmen's motion for reconsideration and on Aovem+er ,?- !"". it issued an amended decision reversing its first decision. %Please chec6 if correct3 )TC annulled the marriage4 )TC re2ected 1en2amin's motion for reconsideration4 CA reversed )TC4 CA reverted to the )TC decision after Carmen's appeal4 now this petition for review at the (C*Correct

%SSU& <:A the guidelines set forth under the Santos and Molina cases should not apply with the present case for it will run counter the principle of stare decisis.

RU'%N" The guidelines prescri+ed in Santos and Molina cases can +e applied with the present case. According to the (C- such argument- that 2udicial decisions cannot +e applied retrospectively is no longer new. &t was also raised in the cases of Pesca vs Pesca and as well in Antonio vs Reyes and the court- in these cases- e5plained that the interpretation or construction of a law +y courts constitutes a part of the law as of the date the statute is enacted %which was when=*. &t is only when a prior ruling of this Court is overruled- and a different view is adopted that the new doctrine may have to +e applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith. %>ay+e +ut it is not included in the case. >ay+e that case of >olina will +e discuss when we reach that certain topic in family relations=*