Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Magtolis
Santos vs. CA
allegations in the
petition for annulment of
marriage are sufficient
Ruling:
Facts:
It was in Iloilo City where Leouel, who then
held the rank of First Lieutenant in the Philippine
Army, first met Julia.
On 20 September 1986, the two exchanged
vows before MTC Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo
City, followed, shortly thereafter, by a church
wedding.
The ecstasy, however, did not last long. It
was bound to happen, Leouel averred, because of the
frequent interference by Julia's parents into the young
spouses family affairs.
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the
United States of America to work as a nurse despite
Leouel's pleas to so dissuade her.
Seven months after her departure, or on 01
January 1989, Julia called up Leouel for the first time
by long distance telephone. She promised to return
home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989.
She never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the
United States where he underwent a training program,
he desperately tried to locate Julia but all his efforts
were of no avail.
Thus, Leouel filed with the RTC a complaint
for "Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the
Family Code".
On 06 November 1991, the court a quo
finally dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The
CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to
return home, or at the very least to communicate with
him, for more than five years are circumstances that
clearly show her being psychologically incapacitated
to enter into married life.
Issue:
Is Leouel and Julias marriage void ab initio
on the ground of Julias psychological incapacity?
Ruling:
"Psychological incapacity" should refer to
no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic
marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed
and discharged by the parties to the marriage as so
expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code. There is
hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has
been to confine the meaning of "psychological
2.
3.
4.
Facts:
Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April
14, 1985.
After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed
signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband
and a father since he preferred to spend more time
with his peers and friends on whom he squandered his
money; that he depended on his parents for aid and
assistance, and was never honest with his wife in
regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels
between them.
In 1987, Reynaldo left Roridel and their
child, and had since then abandoned them.
Roridel filed a petition for declaration of the
nullity of their marriage. The RTC declared the
marriage void. The CA affirmed in toto the RTC's
decision.
Issue:
Is Chi Ming Tsoi and Ginas marriage void
ab initio on the ground of Chi Ming Tsois
psychological incapacity?
Ruling: YES
Ruling: NO
Mere
showing
of
"irreconciliable
differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise
constitutes psychological incapacity.
FACTS:
Lucita and Marcio met in Philippine
Christian University in Dasmarinas
when lucita was Marcios teacher
for two consecutive semesters.
Lucita was 5 years older than
Marcio. They later on became
sweethearts and eventually got
married. They also had a child.
Lucita supported the family as her
husband
continued
studying,
supported by his parents. The first
few years of their marriage went
okay. But this eventually changed.
Marcio
had
an
extra-marital
relation with another student who
is
to
Ruling:
1.
NO
NO
FACTS:
On September 7, 1975, Erlinda
Matias, 16 years old, married
Avelino Parangan Dagdag, 20 years
old,
at
the
Iglesia
Filipina
Independent Church in Cuyapo,
Nueva
Ecija. The
marriage
certificate was issued by the Office
of the Local Civil Registrar of the
Municipality of on October 20,
1988. Erlinda and Avelino begot
two children.
The birth certificates were issued
by the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of the Municipality of
Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija also on
October 20, 1988. A week after the
wedding, Avelino started leaving
his family without explanation. He
would
disappear
for
months,
suddenly re-appear for a few
months,
and
then
disappear
again. During the times when he
Florence,
the
petitioner,
was
married with Philipp, a Portuguese
citizen in January 1987. Florence
filed in September 1994, a
complaint for the declaration of
nullity of their marriage. Trial
ensued and the parties presented
their respective documentary and
testimonial evidence. In June 1995,
trial court dismissed Florences
petition and throughout its trial, the
State did not participate in the
proceedings. While Fiscal Jabson
filed with the trial court a
manifestation
dated
November
1994 stating that he found no
HELD:
Article 48 of the Family Code states
that in all cases of annulment or
declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage, the Court shall order the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal
assigned to it to appear on behalf
of the state to take steps to
prevent collusion between the
parties and to take care that
evidence is not fabricated or
suppressed. The trial court should
have ordered the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal and the SolicitorGeneral to appear as counsel for
the state. No decision shall be
handed down unless the Solicitor
General issues a certification
briefly stating his reasons for his
agreement or opposition as the
case may be, to the petition. The
records are bereft of an evidence
that the State participated in the
prosecution of the case thus, the
case is remanded for proper trial.
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. He was a habitual drinker.
Whenever she tells him to stop or
at least minimize his drinking, her
Furthermore,
the
testimonial
evidence from other witnesses
failed to identify and prove root
cause of the alleged psychological
incapacity. It just established that
the spouses had an incompatibility
or a defect that could possibly be
treated
or
alleviated
through
psychotherapy.
The totality of
evidence
presented
was
completely insufficient to sustain a
finding of psychological incapacity
more so without any medical,
psychiatric
or
psychological
examination.
Ruling: NO
Dedel vs. CA
Tenebro vs. CA
Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Facts:
Facts:
2.
Ruling:
1.
NO
NO
Eduardo presented the results of the neuropsychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Annabelle L.
Reyes, a psychiatrist.
Based on the tests she administered on
Catalina, Dr. Reyes opined that Catalina exhibited
traits of Borderline Personality Disorder.
The RTC granted Eduardos petition. The
CA affirmed the RTCs decision.
Issue:
Is the marriage between Eduardo and
Catalina null and void on the ground of Catalinas
psychological incapacity?
Ruling: NO
Psychological incapacity contemplates an
incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
assume basic marital obligations; not merely the
difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of
marital obligations or ill will.
Firstly, Catalinas supposed behavior were
not even established. Eduardo presented no other
witnesses to corroborate his allegations.
Secondly, the results of the neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. Reyes were ostensibly
vague about the root cause and gravity of Catalinas
alleged psychological incapacity.
Thirdly, we have said that the expert
evidence presented in cases of declaration of nullity of
marriage based on psychological incapacity
presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the
parties by the psychologist or expert. However, Dr.
Reyes had only one interview with Catalina, and did
not personally seek out and meet with other persons,
aside from Eduardo.
Fourthly, the only fact established here,
which Catalina admitted, was her abandonment of the
conjugal home to live with another man. Yet,
abandonment and sexual infidelity are not valid
grounds for the declaration of nullity of marriage.
Mendoza vs. Republic
Ponente: BERSAMIN, J.
Facts:
Arabelle and Dominic had been next-door
neighbors in the appartelle they were renting while
they were still in college.
After a month of courtship, they became
intimate and their intimacy ultimately led to her
pregnancy. They got married on her eighth month of
pregnancy.