Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City Hall on November
24, 1986. In lieu of a marriage license, they executed a sworn affidavit that
they had lived together for at least 5years. On August 1990, Jose contracted
marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual. They were both employees of the
National Statistics and Coordinating Board. Felisa then filed on June 1993 an
action for bigamy against Jose and an administrative complaint with the
Office of the Ombudsman. On the other hand, Jose filed a complaint on July
1993 for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of marriage where he
contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham and his consent was
secured through fraud.
ISSUE: Whether or not Joses marriage with Felisa is valid considering that
they executed a sworn affidavit in lieu of the marriage license requirement.
HELD:CA indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together
for five years at the time they executed their sworn affidavit and contracted
marriage. Jose and Felisa started living together only in June 1986, or barely
five months before the celebration of their marriage on November 1986.
Findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are binding in the Supreme Court.
failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with him for more than 5
years are circumstances that show her being psychologically incapacitated to
enter into married life.
Republic vs Molina
F: The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the
respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of
psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, after a year,
Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband
and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered
his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never
honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an
intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit
her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few
weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned
them.
Te vs te
F: Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent Rowena Te in a gathering
organized by the Filipino-Chinese association in their college. Initially, he was
attracted to Rowenas close friend but, as the latter already had a boyfriend,
the young man decided to court Rowena, which happened in January 1996. It
was Rowena who asked that they elope but Edward refused bickering that he
was young and jobless. Her persistence, however, made him relent. They
left Manila and sailed to Cebu that month; he, providing their travel money of
P80,000 and she, purchasing the boat ticket.They decided to go back to
Manila in April 1996. Rowena proceeded to her uncles house and Edward to
his parents home. Eventually they got married but without a marriage
license. Edward was prohibited from getting out of the house unaccompanied
and was threatened by Rowena and her uncle. After a month, Edward
escaped from the house, and stayed with his parents. Edwards parents
wanted them to stay at their house but Rowena refused and demanded that
they have a separate abode. In June 1996, she said that it was better for
them to live separate lives and they then parted ways.After four years in
January 2000, Edward filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to
Rowena on the basis of the latters psychological incapacity.
ISSUE: Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
HELD:The parties whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six months. They
met in January 1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and
parted ways in June. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found
both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioners behavioral pattern
falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and
respondents, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorderThere
is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically
incapacitated be personally examined by a physician, if the totality of
a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such declaration. Although this
Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material
support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and
abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of
psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his
defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they
are incurable. Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact
that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period of more
than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk,
failed to give material and moral support, and even left the family home.
Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not
to the inception of the marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence
showing that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully
employed as a taxi driver. In sum, this Court cannot declare the dissolution of
the marriage for failure of the petitioner to show that the alleged
psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence
and incurabilty and for her failure to observe the guidelines as outline in
Republic v. CA and Molina.
Republic of the phil vs Laila tanyag-san jose & manoito san jose
F: In 1988, Laila Tanyag, then 19 years old, and Manolito San Jose, then 20
years old, got married to each other, albeit knowing each other for only a
short period. The next year, they had a daughter.Their marriage turned out
to be not an ideal one, however. Manolito refused to get himself a job. He
spent most of his available time with his friends drinking intoxicating
substances and gambling activities. It was Laila who had to work in order to
support the family. Laila gave Manolito all the chances to change but Manolito
never did.In 1997, Laila gave birth to their second child, a boy. Laila thought
this would be the beginning of change for Manolito but that change never
happened. Thus, in 1998, Laila filed a petition to have their marriage be
declared a nullity on the ground that Manolito is psychologically incapacitated
due the fact that he was oblivious of his marital obligations.Laila submitted
herself to psychological evaluation under Dr. Nedy Tayag. Laila described
Manolito to Tayag as a happy-go-lucky individual spending most of his time
hanging out with friends. Considered to be a bad influence, he was into
gambling, drinking sprees and prohibited drugs as well. Ultimately, Tayag
concluded that Manolito is psychologically incapacitated this was even
without actually examining Manolito. The RTC denied Lailas petition but on
appeal, the Court of Appeals gave weight to Dr. Tayags expert testimony and
the appellate court reversed the RTC decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manolito San Jose was proven to be psychologically
incapacitated.
HELD: No. It is true that the guidelines set in the case of Republic vs Court of
Appeals and Molina did not require that the person sought to be declared
psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician
or psychologist as a condition sine qua non to arrive at such declaration. In