Choa vs Choa FACTS:

Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in 1981. They have 2 children namely Cheryl Lynne and Albryan. In 1993, Alfonso filed an annulment of his marriage to Leni. Afterwards, he filed an amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on psychological incapacity. The case went to trial and the trial court further held that Alfonso presented quantum evidence that Leni needs to controvert for the dismissal of the case.

Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and deportation which shows latters psychological incapacity because according to him it clearly showed that his wife not only wanted him behind bars but also to banish outside the country.

ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Leni on the ground of psychological incapacity. HELD: The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the case do not in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife. The evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse of discretion bordering on absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained about three aspects of Lenis personality namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly or collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity.

Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the performance of marital obligations. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity.

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.

Tuason vs. CA -Article 48 of the Family Code is inapplicable. The role of the

prosecuting attorney or fiscal in annulment of marriage and legal separation proceedings is to determine whether collusion exists between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not suppressed or fabricated. Petitioner's vehement opposition to the annulment proceedings negates the conclusion that collusion existed between the parties. There is no allegation by the petitioner that evidence was suppressed or fabricated by any of the parties. Under these circumstances, we are convinced that the non-intervention of a prosecuting attorney to assure lack of collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in the trial court.

Bobis vs Bobis, July 31, 2000 Facts: Isagani Bobis married Maria Javier in 1985. During the subsistence of such marriage, he married Marbella Bobis and then subsequently married Julia Hernandez. Marbella Bobis charged him with bigamy.

Sometime thereafter, he initiated a civil action for the declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license. He filed motion to suspend the proceedings in the crim case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the crim case. Judge granted motion. Marbella filed motion for recon. Denied. Issue: WON the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a crim case for bigamy Held: NO Ratio: 211A prejudicial question is one which arises on a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein. 2122 elements: a.the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action b.the resolution of such issue determines WON the criminal action may proceed 213 Landicho vs Relova: he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the 1st marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy and in such case, the crim case may not be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity. 214here: resorted to civil action as a potential prejudicial question for the purpose of frustrating of delaying his crim prosecution

215A decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the crim charge and thus is not a prejudicial question PETITION GRANTED. RTC orders reversed and set aside. Ordered to immediately proceed with crim case