Pesca vs.

Pesca

FACTS:
The petitioner and respondent were married and had four children. Lorna filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part
of her husband. She alleged that he is emotionally immature and irresponsible. He was cruel
and violent. The Petitioner as well as her children suffered physical violence. Petitioner and
their children left the home. Her husband was imprisoned for 11 days for slight physical
injuries. RTC declared their marriage null and void. CA reversed the decision of the
trial court, stating that petitioner had failed to establish that the respondent showed signs of
mental incapacity, that incapacity is grave, preceded the marriage and is incurable, that
such incapacity is psychological, that the root cause has been identified medically/clinically
and has been proven by an expert and that such incapacity is permanent and incurable
in nature. Petitioner argued that the doctrine enunciated in Santos v. CA as well as the
guidelines set out in Republic v. CA and Molina should have no retroactive application.
Petitioner further argues, the application of the Santos and Molina case should at least only
warrant a remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings and not its dismissal.
ISSUE:
Are the guidelines for psychological incapacity in the Molina and Santos cases should be
taken in consideration in deciding this case?
HELD:
Yes. In the Molina case, guidelines were laid down by the SC before a case would fall under
the category of psychological incapacity to declare a marriage null and void. This decision
has force and effect of a law. These guidelines are mandatory in nature.
The Court held that the doctrine of stare decisis ordained in Article 8 of the Civil Code,
expresses that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal
system of the Philippines. The rule follows the legal maxim legis interpretado legis vim
obtinet that the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the
force of law. The interpretation or construction placed by the courts establishes the
contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. The latter as so interpreted and construed
would thus constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute was enacted. It is only
when a prior ruling of the Court finds itself later overruled, and a different view is adopted,
that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of the parties who have
relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith in accordance therewith (lex
prospicit, non respicit). Petitioner utterly failed, both in her allegations and in her evidence
to prove psychological incapacity on the part of the respondent.
Petition Denied.