Case:

Pesca vs Pesca G.R. No. 136921

Petitioner: Lorna Pesca
Respondent:
Zosimo Pesca
Date:
April 17, 200
Ponente:
Vitug J
Facts:
Petitioner Lorna Pesca and respondent Zosimo Pesca met on board an interisland vessel bound for Bacolod. After a whirlwind courtship, the couple got married
on 03 March 1975. Due to the fact that Lorna was still a college student and that
Zosimo was a seaman, the couple did not initially live together. Six months after the
marriage, the couple finally lived together; initially in Quezon City, and permanently
thereafter, in Caloocan.
Despite being able to stay together for only 2 months in a year, the couple
begot 4 children.
It was only in 1988, or 13 years after they got married, that Lorna started to notice
her husbands true color. Zosimo was emotionally immature, a habitual drinker
and has induced physical abuse not only on Lorna but also on the children
Lorna had once left the house due to the abuse and after 2 months she
decided to forgive Zosimo and give him another chance.
Finally, on 22 March 1994, Lorna left their home for good, after being
assaulted by Zosimo for over half an hour. Lorna submitted herself to a medical
evaluation and filed a complaint against her husband. Zosimo was found guilty by
the MetTC and sentenced to 11 days imprisonment for slight physical injuries.
Lorna also filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court, praying for the
marriage to be declared null and void by invoking psychological incapacity (Art. 36,
NCC).
15 November 1995 the RTC declared the marriage between the parties to
be null and void ab initio due to psychological incapacity and ordered the liquidation
of conjugal properties.
Upon appeal, the CA, reversed the decision of the RTC on the basis that Lorna
Pesca failed to show proof that Zosimo was indeed suffering from psychological
incapacity that would cause him to be in cognitive of the basic marital 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 SC contending
that:
The doctrine lay out by Santos v CA (1995) and Republic of the Philippines v
CA and Molina (1997) cannot be retroactively applied.
The application of Santos and Molina cases should have only warrant a
remand of the case to the Trial Court for further proceedings.
ISSUE:
WoN the CA erred in applying the doctrine laid out in Santos v CA and RP v
CA and Molina, and in reversing the decision of the RTC declaring the marriage to be
null and void ab initio.
HELD: Denied

The doctrine of Stare Decisis, ordained in Art. 8 of NCC, provides that

judicial decisions applying and interpreting the law shal form part of the legal
system in the Philippines.
The term psychological incapacity as a ground for the declaration of nullity
of marriage (Art 36 of NCC) was defined in Santos case as an incapacity that
is:

1. Grave
2. Has preceded the marriage; although may have manifested after the
marriage; and
3. Incurable

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

husband.