Pesca vs Pesca.

Date: April 17, 2001Ponente: Vitug J

Facts:

Petitioner Lorna Pesca and respondent Zosimo Pesca met on board an inter-island
vessel bound for Bacolod. After a whirlwind courtship, the couple gotmarried on 03
March 1975. Due to the fact that Lorna was still a college studentand that Zosimo
was a seaman, the couple did not initially live together. 6months after the marriage,
the couple finally lived together; initially in QuezonCity, and permanently thereafter,
in Caloocan.

Despite being able to stay together for only 2 months in a year, the couple begot4
children.

It was only in 1988, or 13 years after they got married, that Lorna started tonotice
her husbands true color. Zosimo was emotionally immature, a habitualdrinker
and has induced physical abuse not only on Lorna but also on thechildren

Lorna, had once left the house due to the abuse, only to forgive Zosimo and givehim
another chance.

Finally, on 22 March 1994, Lorna left their home for good, after being assaultedby
Zosimo for over half an hour. Lorna submitted herself to a medical evaluationand
filed a complaint against her husband. Zosimo was found guilty by theMetropolitan
Trial Court and sentenced to 11 days imprisonment for slightphysical injuries.

Lorna also filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court, praying for the marriageto
be declared null and void by invoking psychological incapacity (Art. 36, NCC).

15 November 1995 the RTC declared the marriage between the parties to benull
and void ab initio due to psychological incapacity and ordered the liquidationof
conjugal properties.

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals, reversed the decision of the RTC on the
basisthat Lorna Pesca failed to show proof that Zosimo was indeed suffering
frompsychological incapacity that would cause him to be incognitive of the
basicmarital covenant.

The CA stated that

The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies in the plaintiff and any
doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage

and against its dissolution and nullity

."
Lorna Pesca, the appellant, filed a petition for review with the Supreme
Courtcontending that:The doctrine laid out by Santos vs CA (1995) and Republic of the Philippines vsCA
and Molina (1997) cannot be retroactively applied.The application of Santos and Molina should have only warrant a remand of thecase
to the Trial Court for further proceedings.
Issue:

Whether or Not the CA erred in applying the doctrine laid out in Santos vs CA and
RP vs CA and Molina, and in reversing the decision of the RTC declaring themarriage
to be null and void ab inito.
SC Held:
Denied.
Ratio:

The doctrine of
Stare Decisis
, ordained in Art. 8 of the Civil Code, provides that judicial decision applying and
interpretaing the law shall form part of the legalsystem of the Philippines.

The term psychological incapacity as a ground for the declaration of nullity

of marriage (Art.36, NCC) was defined in Santos as an incapacity that is:
a. Grave;
b. Has preceded the marriage; although may have manifested after the marriage;
and
c. Incurable

Petitioner has failed to prove psychological incapacity on the part of her husband.

Emotional immaturity, invoked by the petitioner, does not equate to psychological

incapacity.