Digest Legmed

7/24/2019 Digest Legmed

1/26

1

LIM V CA 214 SCRA 237 SEPTEMBER 25, 1992FACTS: Petition for review on the rule of condentiality the patient-doctorrelationship

Novemer !"# 1$%& ' (uan Sim led with Pan)asinan *TC a petition for

annulment ased on Art +,# alle)in) that Nelly im .petitioner/ is su0erin)

from schiophrenia efore# durin) and after marria)e and until the present (anuary 11# $%$ ' Sim announced he will present 2r ydia Acampado

.psychiatrist/ as a witness on (anuary !"# 1$%$

Petitioner opposed on the )rounds that the testimony sou)ht to e elicited

from the witness is privile)ed since 2r Acampado had e3amined im in aprofessional capacity and had dia)nosed her with schiophrenia4Supoena was issued on (anuary 1!# 1$%$

(anuary !5# 1$%$ ' petitioner led ur)ent motion to 6uash supoena andsuspend proceedin)s4 7verruled

*espondent claimed that 2r Acampado will e presented as e3pert witness

and would not testify on any information ac6uired while attendin) to the

petitioner as doctor4 8arch +# 1$%$ ' petitioner led with CA petition for certiorari and

prohiition ut was denied on Septemer 1%# 1$%$ on the )round thatpetitioner failed to estalish the condential nature of the testimonyotained from 2r Acampado

9SS;: in) doctor-patient condentiality:

14 The communications must ori)inate in a condence that they will not edisclosed

!4 ;lement of condentiality must e essential to the full and satisfactorymaintenance of the relation etween the parties

+4 The relation must e one which the opinion of the community ou)ht to esedulously fostered

54 The in?ury that would inure to the relation y the disclosure of thecommunications must )reater than the enet therey )ain for correctdisposal of liti)ation

2r Acampado was only presented as an e3pert witness@ she did not discloseanythin) otained in the course of her e3amination# interview and treatment ofthe petitioner4 There is nothin) specic or concrete o0ered to show that theinformation otained from 2r Acampado would lac>en the petitionersreputationBcharacter4 astly# she ma>es no claim in any of her proceedin)s that

her counsel had o?ected to any 6uestions as>ed of the witness on the )roundthat it elicited an answer that would violate the condentiality privile)e4


2/26

!

SALITA V MAGTOLIS 233 SCRA 100 JUNE 13, 1994FACTS: ;rwin ;spinosa .+!/ and (oselita Salita .!!/ were married on (anuary !"#1$%,4 Separated in 1$%% and ;rwin sued for annulment on the asis ofpsycholo)ical incapacity

(anuary 1$$! ' petitioner led annulment on the )rounds that ;rwin is

psycholo)ically incapacitated@ also moved for ill of particulars

9SS;: in) for information on evidentiaryfacts4

SC sees no need to dene or limit the scope of Art4 +, of the Family Code sincethe actual issue is with the suciency of the ill of particulars4 AFF9*8;2 CA2;C9S97N4


3/26

+

KROHN V CA 233 SCRA 146 JUNE 14, 1994FACTS: A condential psychiatric evaluation report is ein) presented inevidence efore the trial court in a petition for annulment of marria)e )roundedon psycholo)ical incapacity4 The witness testifyin) on the report is the husandwho initiated the annulment proceedin)s# not the physician who prepared thereport4 8a4 Pa Fernande Erohn# invo>in) doctor-patient condentiality# see>sto en?oin her husand from disclosin) the contents of the psychiatric evaluationreport4

(une 15# 1$,5 ' ;d)ar Erohn (r4 and 8a4 Pa Fernande were married in

San 8arcelino 8anila4 9n 1$&1# Pa underwent psycholo)ical testin) in ane0ort to ease marital strain@ 1$&+ ' oth separated

1$&" ' ;d)ar was ale to secure a copy of the condential psychiatricreport si)ned y 2r Cornelio anaa) and altaar *eyes4

Novemer !# 1$&% ' ;d)ar otained a decree from family court nullifyin)

his marria)e with Pa4 7n (une 1G# 1$&$# decree was conrmed andpronounced nal

(uly +G# 1$%! ' Pasi) CF9 )ranted voluntary dissolution of con?u)al

partnership

7ctoer !+# 1$$G ' ;d)ar led petition for annulment# citin) the

condential psychiatric evaluation report

8ay %# 1$$1 ' ;d)ar testied on the contents of the psych report ut waso?ected due to patient-doctor condentiality4 Petitioner asserted thatthere is no factual or le)al asis for ;d)ars claims since reports wereHfaricated4I

(une 5# 1$$1 ' *TC admitted condential psychiatric report as evidence

Petitioner ar)ued pursuant to Sec4 !5 .c/# *ule 1+G *7CJ# prohiits a

physician from testifyin) on matters which he may have ac6uired inattendin) to a patient in a professional capacity# more so a third persontestifyin) on privile)ed matters etween a physician and patient or fromsumittin) any medical report prepared y a physician which the latterhas ac6uired as a result of his condential and privile)ed relation with the

patient 8ay !$# 1$$1 ' ;d)ar opposed Pa motion to disallow the introduction of

the condential psych report as evidence

9SS;:


4/26

5

Such testimony then is considered nothin) ut hearsay4 P;T9T97N 2;N9;2 F7*ACE 7F 8;*9T4

SANT7S L CA !5G SC*A !G (ANA*D 5# 1$$"FACTS: eouel Santos .petitioner/ and (ulia *osario edia were married onSeptemer !G# 1$%, in 9loilo City

8ay 1%# 1$%% ' (ulia left for the S as a nurse4 She did not disclose where

she lived@ petitioner tried to locate her in the S ut was unsuccessful4 =ethen led with *TC a complaint for nullity of marria)e

8ay +1# 1$$1 ' (ulia opposed complaint and alle)ed that the petitioner

was the one who had een irresponsile and incompetent

No collusion proven y the provincial prosecutor

Novemer ,# 1$$1 ' court dismissed the case for lac> of merit4 Petitionerappealed on the asis that (ulias failure to return and lac> ofcommunication proves she is psycholo)ically incapacitated

9SS;: of intention ofcommunicatin) with eouel/ constitutes as psycholo)ical incapacity

=;2: Psycholo)ical incapacity is characteried y: 14 Mravity@ !4 (uridicalantedence and@ +4 9ncuraility4 The incapacity must e )rave or serious such thatthe party would e incapale of carryin) out the ordinary duties re6uired inmarria)e@ it must e rooted in the history of the party antedatin) the marria)e#althou)h the overt manifestations may emer)e only after the marria)e@ and itmust e incurale or# even if it were otherwise# the cure would e eyond themeans of the party involved4

Psycholo)ical incapacity does not cover all psychoses .e3tremely low

intelli)ence# immaturity# etc/ Article +, of the Family Code cannot e ta>en andconstrued independently of# ut must stand in con?unction with# e3istin)precepts in our law on marria)e4 Thus correlated# psycholo)ical incapacityshould refer to no less than a mental .not physical/ incapacity that causes aparty to e truly inco)nitive of the asic marital covenants that concomitantlymust e assumed and dischar)ed y the parties to the marria)e which# as soe3pressed y Article ,% of the Family Code# include their mutual oli)ations tolive to)ether# oserve love# respect and delity and render help and support4

There is hardly any dout that the intendment of the law has een to conne themeanin) of psycholo)ical incapacity to the most serious cases of personalitydisorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inaility to )ivemeanin) and si)nicance to the marria)e4 This psycholo)ical condition must

e3ist at the time the marria)e is celerated4 The law does not evidently envision#upon the other hand# an inaility of the spouse to have se3ual relations with theother4 This conclusion is implicit under Article "5 of the Family Code whichconsiders children conceived prior to the ?udicial declaration of nullity of the voidmarria)e to e le)itimate4

The other forms of psychoses# if e3istin) at the inception of marria)e# li>e thestate of a party ein) of unsound mind or concealment of dru) addiction#haitual alcoholism# homose3uality or lesianism# merely renders the marria)econtract voidable pursuant to Article 5,# Family Code4 9f dru) addiction# haitualalcholism# lesianism or homose3uality should occur only durin) the marria)e#

they ecome mere )rounds for le)al separation under Article "" of the FamilyCode4 These provisions of the Code# however# do not necessarily preclude thepossiility of these various circumstances ein) themselves# dependin) on the


5/26

"

de)ree and severity of the disorder# indicia of psycholo)ical incapacity4 P;T9T97N2;N9;2 F7* ACE 7F 8;*9T

29SS;NT9NM 7P9N97NS:(4 PA29A ' (ulia appears to e psycholo)ically incapacitated to comply with atleast one essential marital oli)ation i4e4 that of livin) and cohaitin) with herhusand4


6/26

,

marital duties and@ +4 *oridels failure to run the household and run theirnances

7lavianos alle)ations were corroorated y her friends# *uth Salas .social

wor>er/ and 2r4 Teresita =idal)o-Sison .psychiatrist/@ sumitted documentsconrmin) such while *eynaldo did not present any evidence durin) pre-

trial 8ay 15# 1$$1 ' Family court declared marria)e null and void4 CA armed

the same

9SS;: en of is an incapacity ut more of a diculty orne)lect in performin) marital oli)ations4 9t is not enou)h to prove that the

parties failed to meet their responsiilities ut they must show that they areincapale of doin) so# due to some psycholo)ical illness

Muidelines for Psycholo)ical 9ncapacity:14 B!"#$% &' ("&&' )$*&%+ -& -$ (*/%- ' any dout should e

resolved in favor of the e3istence and continuation of the marria)e2. R&&- /!$ &' (&*&+/* %/(/- !- )$ /. $#/** &"

*%/** #$%-$# ). /**$+$# % -$ &(*/%- . !8$%-*("&$% ) $:($"- /%# #. *$/"* $:(*/%$# % -$ #$&%

+4 P&*&+/* %/(/- !- )$ ("&$% -& )$ $:-%+ /- -$ -$;#!"%+< $*$)"/-&% &' /""/+$ = need not e perceivale at such

time ut must e e3istin) at the time thereof or prior to it54 I%!"/)*- =clinically permanent or incurale4 Such incapacity must erelevant to the assumption of marital oli)ations# not necessarily thoserelated to marria)e4

"4 G"/- =muste )rave enou)h to rin) aout the disaility of the partyto assume essential marital oli)ations4 8ild character iolo)icalpeculiarities# e4)4 mood chan)es# occasional emotional outursts cannote accepted as such4 There is a natal or supervenin) disalin) factor inthe person that e0ectively incapacitates the person from fulllin) hisBheressential marital oli)ations

6. T$ $$%-/* /"-/* &)*+/-&% !- )$ -&$ $%-&%$# % A"-6>?71 &' -$ @/* C$ / $** / A"- 220, 221, A%# 225 "$*/-%+

-& (/"$%- /%# *#"$%7. I%-$"("$-/-&% +$% ) -$ &!"- &!*# )$ +$% "$($-%4 P/"-(/-&% &' -$ S-/-$ = Fiscal or Solicitor Meneral must appear as

counsel for the StateP;T9T97N 9S M*ANT;24 8A**9AM; 9S LA92 AN2 SS9ST9NM

S;PA*AT; 7P9N97NS:(4 PA29A ' 8aintained position in Santos v CA4 ;ach case must e ?ud)edased on its own facts4 The trial ?ud)e must ta>e pains in e3aminin) the actualmilieu and CA must avoid sustitutin) its own ?ud)ment for that of the trail court4

(4 *78;*7 ' Psycholo)ical incapacity should not e the result of mental illness4For if it were due to insanity or defects in the mental faculties .imecility/# thereis a resultant defect of vice of consent# thus renderin) the marria)e voidale


7/26

&

under Art 5" of Family Code4 Psycholo)ical incapacity does not refer to mentalfaculties and has nothin) to do with consent@ it refers to oli)ations attendant tomarria)e

HERNANE V COURT O@ APPEALS 320 SCRA 76 ECEMBER >, 1999FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA dated (anuary+G# 1$$, armin) *TC decision dated April 1G# 1$$+ which dismissed thepetition for annulment of marria)e led y petitioner

ucita ;strella .petitioner/ and 8ario =ernande were married on (anuary

1# 1$%1 in Silan)# Cavite with three children

(uly 1G# 1$$! ' petitioner led efore Ta)aytay *TC a petition for

annulment on the )rounds of psycholo)ical incapacity@ from the time ofthe marria)e up to present# cohaited with another woman# immature andirresponsile# had ST2# alcoholic

7ctoer %# 1$$! ' 8ario did not answer ucitas alle)ations4 Assistant

provincial prosecutor found no evidence of collusion

April 1G# 1$$+ ' *TC dismissed petition for annulment4 (anuary +G# 1$$,#

CA armed *TC decision

9SS;:


8/26

%

2r Natividad 2ayan .psycholo)ist/ evaluated the appellee while appellant

did not

*TC found respondent to e psycholo)ically incapacitated ut CA reversed

the decision ecause psycholo)ical incapacity has not een estalishedsuciently y the evidences presented

9SS;:


9/26

$

April !!# 1$%+ ' CA armed *TC decision

9SS;: 5 MARCH 26, 2001FACTS: Petition for declaration of nullity of marria)e due to psycholo)ical

incapacity (une 5# 1$%& ' Florence 8alcampo .petitioner/ and Philipp Sin

.respondent/# a Portu)uese citien# were married at St4 (ude CatholicParish# 8anila

Septemer !G# 1$$5 ' Florence led with Pasi) *TC a complaint for

declaration of nullity of marria)e

(une 1,# 1$$" ' *TC dismissed Florences petition

2ecemer 1$# 1$$" ' Florence led a notice of appeal to CA

April +G# 1$$% ' CA dismissed Florences petition and armed *TCdecision

(une !+# 1$$% ' petitioner led a motion for reconsideration with CA ut

was denied on (anuary 1$# 1$$$

9SS;: nown the oli)ations he was assumin)# or >nowin) them# could nothave )iven valid assumption thereof4

+4 The incapacity was e proven to e e3istin) at the time of the celeration

of the marria)e and is still e3istin)


10/26

1G

54 Such incapacity must also e shown to e medically or clinicallypermanent or incurale4 Furthermore# such incapacity must e relevant tothe assumption of marria)e oli)ations# not necessarily to those notrelated to marria)e# li>e the e3ercise of a profession or employment in a

?o4 =ence# a pediatrician may e e0ective in dia)nosin) illnesses ofchildren and prescriin) medicine to cure them ut may not epsycholo)ically capacitated to procreate# ear and raise hisBher ownchildren as an essential oli)ation of marria)e4

"4 Such illness must e )rave enou)h to rin) aout the disaility of theparty to assume the essential oli)ations of marria)e4 The illness must eshown as downri)ht incapacity or inaility# not refusal# ne)lect ordiculty# much less ill will4 9n other words# there is a natal or supervenin)disalin) factor in the person# an adverse inte)ral element in thepersonality structure that e0ectively incapacitates the person from reallyacceptin) and therey complyin) with the oli)ations essential tomarria)e4

,4 The essential marital oli)ations must e those emraced y Articles ,%

up to &1 of the Family Code as re)ards the husand and wife as well asArticles !!G# !!1 and !!" of the same Code in re)ard to parents and theirchildren4 Such non-complied marital oli)ation.s/ must also e stated inthe petition# proven y evidence and included in the te3t of the decision4

&4 9nterpretations )iven y the National Appellate 8atrimonial Triunal of theCatholic Church in the Philippines# while not controllin) or decisive# shoulde )iven )reat respect y our courts4

There is no state participation in the instant case other than the manifestationled with the *TC on Novemer 1,# 1$$54 The state did not le any pleadin)#motion or position paper# at any sta)e of the proceedin)s4

PESCA V PESCA 356 SCRA 5>> APRIL 17, 2001FACTS: Sumitted for review is the decision of the Court of Appeals#promul)ated on !& 8ay 1$$%# in C4A4 M4*4 CL4 No4 "!+&5# reversin) the decisionof the *e)ional Trial Court .*TC/ of Caloocan City# ranch 1+G# which hasdeclared the marria)e etween petitioner and respondent to e null and void abinitio on the )round of psycholo)ical incapacity on the part of respondent4

8arch +# 1$&" ' orna Pesca .petitioner/ and osimo Pesca .respondent/

were in acolod and had + children4 As a seaman# he did not often staywith petitioner4

9n 1$%% ' respondent showed si)ns of immaturity# cruelty# was a haitual

drin>er

Novemer 1$# 1$$! ' petitioner left with her children due to his cruelehavior ut returned and )ave osimo a second chance4

8arch !!# 1$$5 ' respondent assaulted petitioner so petitioner decidedlyto leave osimo4 Petitioner led for annulment# invo>in) psycholo)icalincapacity as )rounds

April !"# 1$$5 ' summons were served on respondent ut he failed to le

an answer within re)lamentary period4

Au)ust +# 1$$5 ' prosecutor sumitted report that no collusion e3ists

etween oth parties

(anuary 11# 1$$" ' respondent led an answer denyin) psycholo)ical

incapacity

Novemer 1"# 1$$" ' *TC )ranted nullity of marria)e ut CA reversed thedecision on the asis that petitioner has not suciently estalished the


11/26

11

)rounds for psycholo)ical incapacity: )ravity# ?uridical antecedence andincuraility

9SS;: s# and# until the relatively recent enactment ofthe Family Code# the concept has escaped ?urisprudential attention4 9t is inSantos when# for the rst time# the Court has )iven life to the term4 8olina# thatfollowed# has additionally provided procedural )uidelines to assist the courts andthe parties in tryin) cases for annulment of marria)es )rounded on psycholo)icalincapacity4 8olina has stren)thened# not overturned# Santos4

At all events# petitioner has utterly failed# oth in her alle)ations in the complaintand in her evidence# to ma>e out a case of psycholo)ical incapacity on the partof respondent# let alone at the time of solemniation of the contract# so as towarrant a declaration of nullity of the marria)e4 ;motional immaturity andirresponsiility# invo>ed y her# cannot e e6uated with psycholo)ical incapacity4

CHOA V CHOA 392 SCRA 641 NOVEMBER 26, 2002FACTS: Petition for *eview on Certiorari under *ule 5" of the *ules of Court#assailin) the 8arch 1,# !GGG 2ecision and the 8ay !!# !GGG *esolution of theCourt of Appeals .CA/ in CA-M* SP No4 "+1GG

8arch 1"# 1$%1 ' Petitioner eni Choa married respondent Alfonso Choaand had ! children

7ctoer ! 1$$+ ' respondent led efore *TC complaint for annulment

ased on psycholo)ical incapacity of petitioner

Feruary !G# 1$$% ' respondent led a formal o0er of e3hiit@ petitioner

did not o?ect ut instead# led a motion to dismiss .demurrer to evidence/on 8ay 11# 1$$%

2ecemer !# 1$$% ' *TC denied petitioners demurrer of evidence@ ledmotion for reconsideration ut was denied4 ;levated to CA throu)h apetition for certiorari

CA held that demurrer was not the correct procedure@ proper remedy was

for the defense to present evidence and appeal there from4 Petitioner also


12/26

1!

failed to show that the issues in the court had een resolved aritrarilywithout asis

9SS;S: 9s certiorari availale to correct an order denyin) a demurrer toevidence 9n its denial# did the *TC commit )rave ause of discretion y violatin)or i)norin) the applicale law and ?urisprudence

=;2: 9n )eneral# interlocutory orders are neither appealale nor su?ect tocertiorari proceedin)s4 =owever# this rule is not asolute4 9n Tadeo v4 People#!1

this Court declared that appeal -- not certiorari -- in due time was indeed theproper remedy# provided there was no )rave ause of discretion or e3cess of

?urisdiction or oppressive e3ercise of ?udicial authority4 9n fact# *ules 51 and ," ofthe *ules of Court e3pressly reco)nie this e3ception and allow certiorari whenthe lower court acts with )rave ause of discretion in the issuance of aninterlocutory order4

The evidence a)ainst respondent .herein petitioner/ is )rossly insucient to

support any ndin) of psycholo)ical incapacity that would warrant a declarationof nullity of the parties marria)e4 The documents presented y respondentdurin) the trial do not in any way show the alle)ed psycholo)ical incapacity ofhis wife4 9t is the hei)ht of asurdity and ine6uity to condemn her aspsycholo)ically incapacitated to fulll her marital oli)ations# simply ecauseshe led cases a)ainst him4 Sorely lac>in) in respondents evidence is proof thatthe psycholo)ical incapacity was )rave enou)h to rin) aout the disaility of aparty to assume the essential oli)ations of marria)e4 9n 8olina# we armed thatmild characterolo)ical peculiarities# mood chan)es and occasional emotionaloutursts cannot e accepted as root causes of psycholo)ical incapacity4

2r4 Antonio 84 Mauon# utterly failed to identify and prove the root cause of the

alle)ed psycholo)ical incapacity4 Specically# his testimony did not show that theincapacity# if true# was medically or clinically permanent or incurale4 Neither didhe testify that it was )rave enou)h to rin) aout the disaility of the party toassume the essential oli)ations of marria)e4

BARCELONA V CA 412 SCRA 41 SEPTEMBER 24, 2003FACTS: Petition for *eview efore us assails the +G 8ay 1$$& 2ecision as well asthe & Au)ust 1$$& *esolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-M4*4 SP No4 5++$+4

The Court of Appeals armed the 7rder dated !1 (anuary 1$$& of the *e)ionalTrial Court of Uueon City# ranch 1G,# in Civil Case No4 U-$"-!55&14 The*e)ional Trial Court refused to dismiss private respondents Petition for

Annulment of 8arria)e for failure to state a cause of action and for violation ofSupreme Court Administrative Circular No4 G5-$54 The assailed *esolution deniedpetitioners motion for reconsideration4

8arch !$# 1$$" ' Tadeo en)on led a petition for annulment a)ainst

2iana arcelona .petitioner/4 7n 8ay $# 1$$"# Tadeo led a motion towithdraw petition which the *TC )ranted on (une 1$$"

(uly !1# 1$$" ' Tadeo led annulment a)ain ut petitioner led a motion to

dismiss on two )rounds: no cause of action and violates SC administrativecircular G5-$5 on forum shoppin)

Mround for dismissal of the petition for reconsideration led y petitioner

.a)ainst deferrin) resolution/ was the complainants failure to state acause of action ut accordin) to (ud)e Pison# petitioner was shown to haveviolated the complainants ri)ht so there is cause of action4


13/26

1+

*TC issued its 2ecemer !# 1$$% 7rder denyin) petitioners 2emurrer to

;vidence4 9t held that VrespondentW estalished a 6uantum of evidencethat the VpetitionerW must controvert4 After her 8otion for*econsideration11 was denied in the 8arch !!# 1$$$ 7rder# petitionerelevated the case to the CA y way of a Petition for Certiorari#1+doc>eted

as CA-M* No4 "+1GG4

9SS;: e psycholo)icalincapacity in annullin) said marria)e

=;2: A demurrer to evidence is dened as an o?ection or e3ception y one ofthe parties in an action at law# to the e0ect that the evidence which hisadversary produced is insucient in point of law .whether true or not/ to ma>eout his case or sustain the issue4 The demurrer challen)es the suciency of theplainti0s evidence to sustain a verdict4 9n passin) upon the suciency of theevidence raised in a demurrer# the court is merely re6uired to ascertain whetherthere is competent or sucient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a

verdict of )uilt4

The evidence a)ainst respondent .herein petitioner/ is )rossly insucient tosupport any ndin) of psycholo)ical incapacity that would warrant a declarationof nullity of the parties marria)e4

9n the case at ar# the evidence adduced y respondent merely shows that heand his wife could not )et alon) with each other4 There was asolutely noshowin) of the )ravity or ?uridical antecedence or incuraility of the prolemsesettin) their marital union4 2r4 Antonio 84 Mauon# utterly failed to identifyand prove the root cause of the alle)ed psycholo)ical incapacity4 Specically# histestimony did not show that the incapacity# if true# was medically or clinicallypermanent or incurale4 Neither did he testify that it was )rave enou)h to rin)aout the disaility of the party to assume the essential oli)ations of marria)e48edical e3amination is not a conditio sine 6ua non to a ndin) of psycholo)icalincapacity# so lon) as the totality of evidence presented is enou)h to estalishthe incapacity ade6uately4 =ere# however# the totality of evidence presented yrespondent was completely insucient to sustain a ndin) of psycholo)icalincapacity -- more so without any medical# psychiatric or psycholo)icale3amination4 P;T9T97N M*ANT;24 ANN8;NT CAS; 67 JANUAR 29, 2004FACTS: Petitioner 2avid 2edel married Sharon Corpu on Septemer !%# 1$,,

.civil rites/ and church weddin) on 8ay !G# 1$,&4 they had four children Petitioner claims that durin) the marria)e Sharon turned out to e

irresponsile and immature wife and mother@ had several a0airs with othermen4

Sharon was treated y clinical psychiatrist 2r4 ourdes apu ut a0airs

continued4 She even married the (ordanian national and had ! childrenand left with him4

April 1# 1$$& ' petitioner led a petition for annulment on the )rounds ofpsycholo)ical incapacity4 Summons were severed ut no response fromrespondent4

Petitioner presented 2r4 Natividad 2ayan who conducted a psycholo)ical

evaluation of petitioner who found him to e conscientious# hardwor>in)#perfectionist


14/26

15

2ayan noted that Sharon was su0erin) from anti-social personality

disorder evidenced y her promiscuity and lac> of remorse@ these areindications amountin) to psycholo)ical incapacity

*TC rendered said marria)e null and void

9SS;: es the respondentcompletely unale to perform her essential marital oli)ations4

At est# the circumstances descried are )rounds for le)al separation under Art"" of Family Code4 Article +, is not to e e6uated with le)al separation in whichthe )rounds need not e rooted in psycholo)ical incapacity ut on physicalviolence# moral pressure# civil interdiction# dru) addiction# haitual alcoholism#

se3ual indelity# aandonment and the li>e4 9n short# the evidence presented ypetitioner refers only to )rounds for le)al separation# not for declarin) a marria)evoid4 P;T9T97N 2;N9;2

REPUBLIC V DUINTERO?HAMANO G.R. NO 14949> MA 20, 2004FACTS: Petition for review of the decision dated Au)ust !G# !GG1 of the Court ofAppeals armin) the decision dated Au)ust !%# 1$$& of the *e)ional Trial Courtof *ial# ranch &!# declarin) as null and void the marria)e contracted etweenherein respondent olita 84 Uuintero-=amano and her husand Toshio =amano4

(anuary 15# 1$%% ' olita Uuintero and (apanese national Toshio =amano

were married in acoor Cavite4 *espondent did not >now that Toshio was

psycholo)ically incapacitated4 After the marria)e# Toshio left for (apan utnever returned4 No nancial support received from him

Summons were served y pulication ut the respondent failed to answer

Novemer !G# 1$$, ' prosecutor reported that no collusion e3ists4 2urin)

trial petitioner testied how Toshio aandoned his family and o0ereddocumentary evidence to support her claims

Au)ust !%# 1$$& ' *TC declared marria)e null and void on the )roundsthat Toshio failed to perform his essential marital oli)ations

9SS;:


15/26

1"

SIANGCO V SIANGCO 441 SCRA 422 OCTOBER 27, 2004FACTS: A petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appealspromul)ated on G1 (uly !GG+# reversin) the decision !of the *e)ional Trial Court.*TC/# ranch 1G!# Uueon City# dated +1 (anuary !GG1# which dismissed thepetition for declaration of nullity of marria)e led y respondent herein (ud)e8anuel Siayn)co

Au)ust 11# 1$&+ ' (uanita Caratin) .petitioner/ married 8anuel Siayn)co

.respondent/ civil rites and church on (une ! 1$&+4 Adopted ay oy

Septemer !"# 1$$& ' respondent led for declaration of nullity ased on

Art +,@ petitioner was over domineerin)# selsh# volatile# na))er andtrivial4 No respect for his position as ?ud)e4 This is rooted in her deep-seated resentment from lac> of love and appreciation from her parents

Accordin) to petitioner# respondent is lyin) ecause he wants to e with

his paramour

*espondent presented 2r Lalentina Marcia .psychiatrist/@ from her

psychiatric evaluation# oth had narcissistic psycholo)ical repertoire.alon) with their other maladaptive traits/# failed to ade6uately empathie.or to e responsive and sensitive/ to each others needs and feelin)s

ased on the psychiatric report of 2r ;duardo 8aaa# petitioner is

psycholo)ically capacitated to comply with essential marital oli)ations

(anuary +1# !GG1 ' *TC denied petition for nullity ased on insucientevidence

(uly 1# !GG+ ' CA reversed *TC decision ased on psychiatric report of 2r

Marcia that oth are psycholo)ically incapacitated and on the case of Chi8in) Tsoi v CA

9SS;: es him completely unale to dischar)e the essential oli)ations of themarital state and not merely due to his ardent wish to have a child of his ownOesh and lood4

*espondent failed to prove that his wifes ehavior and actions are )ravepsycholo)ical maladies that paralye her from complyin) with the essentialoli)ations of marria)e4 Neither is there any showin) that these defects werealready present at the inception of the marria)e or that they are incurale4 9nfact# 2r4 8aaa# whose e3pertise as a psychiatrist was admitted y respondent8anuel# reported that petitioner was psycholo)ically capacitated to comply withthe asic and essential oli)ations of marria)e4 2r4 Marcias report does not evenmention that petitioner is psycholo)ically incapacitated4 P;T9T97N M*ANT;24 CA2;C9S97N 00 MARCH 10, 2005

FACTS: Petition for *eview on Certiorari assails the 2ecision and *esolution ofthe Court of Appeals dated !$ Novemer !GG1 and !5 7ctoer !GG!4 The Court


16/26

1,

of Appeals had reversed the ?ud)ment of the *e)ional Trial Court .*TC/ of 8a>atideclarin) the marria)e of eonilo N4 Antonio .petitioner/ and 8arie 9vonne F4*eyes .respondent/# null and void

2ecemher ,# 1$$G ' petitioner and respondent were married in Pasi) and

had a child who died " months after irth

8arch %# 1$$+ ' petitioner led for declaration of nullity ased on Art4 +,#alle)in) that respondent is psycholo)ically incapacitated to comply withessential marital oli)ations# incapacity e3isted at the time of themarria)e and e3ists up to the present

Petitioner alle)ed that respondent is a patholo)ical liar who lied aout

everythin)

Petitioner presented 2r 2ante Acede .psychiatrist/ and 2r Arnulfo ope.clinical psycholo)ist/@ ased on their tests# respondents constant lyin)was patholo)ical or anormal4 This undermined the asic relationship ofthe marria)e4

*espondent denied all alle)ations@ presented 2r Antonio ;fren *eyes

.psychiatrist/ who tested respondent and found her to e psycholo)icallycapacitated to perform marital duties

2r4 ope asseverated that there were Oaws in the evaluation conductedy 2r4 *eyes as .i/ he was not the one who administered and interpretedrespondents psycholo)ical evaluation# and .ii/ he made use of only oneinstrument called CP*S which was not reliale ecause a )ood liar canfa>e the results of such test

Church annulled marria)e due to lac> of discretion on oth parties ut CA

reversed decision on the insuciency of evidence provided

9SS;: en from Canon aw4;ach case must e ?ud)ed not on the asis of a priori assumptions# predilectionsor )eneraliations ut accordin) to its own facts4 Petitioner was ale tosuciently prove the psycholo)ical incapacity of his spouse .witnesses# e3perts#etc/4 The root cause of respondents psycholo)ical incapacity has een

medically or clinically identied# alle)ed in the complaint# suciently proven ye3perts# and clearly e3plained in the trial courts decision4 The initiatorycomplaint alle)ed that respondent# from the start# had e3hiited unusual andanormal ehavior of perenVnWially tellin) lies# faricatin) ridiculous stories# etc4

*espondents psycholo)ical incapacity was estalished to have clearly e3isted atthe time of and even efore the celeration of marria)e4 She faricated friendsand made up letters from ctitious characters well efore she married petitioner4i>ewise# she >ept petitioner in the dar> aout her natural childs real parenta)eas she only confessed when the latter had found out the truth after theirmarria)e4 Also# The )ravity of respondents psycholo)ical incapacity is sucientto prove her disaility to assume the essential oli)ations of marria)e4


17/26

1&

*espondent is evidently unale to comply with the essential marital oli)ationsas emraced y Articles ,% to &1 of the Family Code4 Article ,%# in particular#en?oins the spouses to live to)ether# oserve mutual love# respect and delity#and render mutual help and support4

The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to ta>e into consideration thefact that the marria)e of the parties was annulled y the Catholic Church4=owever# althou)h 2r Acede did not comment on the incuraility ofrespondents illness# the SC ruled that each case is to e tried ased on themerits of the facts presented and not ?ust ?uridical precedence4 P;T9T97NM*ANT;2# 8A**9AM;2 N AN2 L792

REPUBLIC V IO 470 SCRA SEPTEMBER 21, 2005FACTS: 9n this Petition for *eview on Certiorariunder *ule 5" of the *ules ofCourt# petitioner *epulic of the Philippines# represented y the 7ce of theSolicitor Meneral# prays for the reversal of the 2ecision of the Court of Appeals inCA-M4*4 CL No4 ,!"+$# dated +G (uly !GG1# armin) the (ud)ment of the

*e)ional Trial Court .*TC/ of Ceu City# ranch !!# in Civil Case No4 C;-!GG&dated +G 7ctoer 1$$%# declarin) the marria)e etween respondent Crasus 49yoy and Fely Ada *osal-9yoy null and void on the asis of Article +, of the FamilyCode of the Philippines

2ecemer 1,# 1$,1 ' Crasus and Fely married in Ceu City@ oth had "

children4 After the marria)e# Fely was hot-tempered# na))er ande3trava)ant

1$%5 ' Fely went to the S@ after a year# Crasus received divorce papersfrom Fely and eventually found out that Fely married an American4*espondent led complaint after 1+ years of marria)e

Fely denied claims that it was respondent who was a drun>ard# lay etc4

No deposition sumitted from Philippine Consul in S to *TC@ *TC declaredmarria)e void a initio on 7ctoer +G# 1$$%

State intervened ut CA armed *TC decision

9SS;:


18/26

1%

@*(%& -$%4 Althou)h the e3act date was not estalished# Fely herselfadmitted in her Answer led efore the *TC that she otained a divorce fromrespondent Crasus sometime after she left for the nited States % 19>4# afterwhich she married her American husand in 1$%"4 9n the same Answer# shealle)ed that she had een an American citien %$ 19>>4 At the time she ledfor divorce# Fely was -** / @*(%& -$%# and pursuant to the nationalityprinciple emodied in Article 1" of the Civil Code of the Philippines# she was stillound y Philippine laws on family ri)hts and duties# status# condition# and le)alcapacity# even when she was already livin) aroad4 Philippine laws# then andeven until now# do not allow and reco)nie divorce etween Filipino spouses4

Thus# Fely could not have validly otained a divorce from respondent Crasus42;C9S97N *;L;*S;2 AN2 S;T AS92;4 8A**9AM; 9S LA92 AN2 SS9ST9NM

U V U 4>4 SCRA 4>5 MARCH 10, 2006FACTS: Petitioner ;ric (onathan Du led a petition for haeas corpus efore CA on

(anuary 11# !GG! alle)in) that his estran)ed wife Caroline Tanchay-Du.respondent/ unlawfully withheld from him the custody of their minor child

8arch +# !GG! ' respondent led a petition for declaration of nullity ofmarria)e and dissolution of ACP efore Pasi) *TC

8arch !1# !GG! ' while haeas corpus was pendin)# CA awarded petitionerof full custody over their child with full visitation ri)hts to respondent

Petitioner and respondent later led on April "# !GG! efore the appellate court a(oint 8otion to Approve 9nterim Lisitation A)reement which was# y *esolution ofApril !5# !GG!# approved4

7n April 1%# !GG!# respondent led efore the appellate court a 8otion for the

8odication of her visitin) ri)hts under the 9nterim Lisitation A)reement4 To the8otion# petitioner led an 7pposition with 8otion to Cite *espondent forContempt of Court in li)ht of her lin) of the petition for declaration of nullity ofmarria)e efore the Pasi) *TC which# so he contended# constituted forumshoppin)4

y *esolution of (uly "# !GG!# the appellate court ordered respondent and hercounsel to ma>e the necessary amendment in her petition for declaration ofnullity of marria)e efore the Pasi) City *TC in so far as the custody aspect isconcerned# under pain of contempt4

9n compliance with the appellate courts *esolution of (uly "# !GG!# respondentled a 8otion to Admit Amended Petition efore the Pasi) *TC4 She# however#later led in 2ecemer !GG! a 8otion to 2ismiss her petition# without pre?udice#on the )round that since she started residin) and conductin) usiness at hernew address at Pasay City# constraints on resources and her very usy schedulerendered her unale to devote the necessary time and attention to the petition4

The Pasi) *TC )ranted respondents motion and accordin)ly dismissed thepetition without pre?udice# y 7rder of 8arch !%# !GG+4

7n (une 1!# !GG+# petitioner led his own petition for declaration of nullity ofmarria)e and dissolution of the asolute community of property efore the Pasi)*TC# doc>eted as (2*C Case No4 ,1$G# with prayer for the award to him of the

sole custody of ianca# su?ect to the nal resolution y the appellate court of hispetition for haeas corpus4


19/26

1$

The appellate court eventually dismissed the haeas corpus petition# y*esolution of (uly +# !GG+# for havin) ecome moot and academic# the restrainton the lierty of the person alle)ed to e in restraint Vhavin) eenW lifted4

@ERRARIS V @ERRARIS G.R. NO. 16236> JUL 17, 2006FACTS: This resolves the motion for reconsideration led y petitioner 8a4Armida Pere-Ferraris of the *esolution dated (une $# !GG5 denyin) the petitionfor review on certiorari of the 2ecision and *esolution of the Court of Appealsdated April +G# !GG+ and Feruary !5# !GG5# respectively# for failure of thepetitioner to suciently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversileerror4

Feruary !G# !GG1 ' Pasi) *TC denied the petition for declaration of nullity

of marria)e led y the petitioner on the )rounds that epilepsy does notamount to psycholo)ical incapacity and evidence on record wasinsucient to prove indelity4 8otion for reconsideration was denied onApril !G# !GG1

CA armed in toto the ?ud)ment of *TC@ it held that the evidence onrecord did not convincin)ly estalish that respondent was su0erin) frompsycholo)ical incapacity or that his defects were incurale and alreadypresent at the inception of the marria)e45The Court of Appeals also foundthat 2r4 2ayanKs testimony failed to estalish the sustance ofrespondentKs psycholo)ical incapacity@ that she failed to e3plain how shearrived at the conclusion that the respondent has a mi3ed personalitydisorder@ that she failed to clearly demonstrate that there was a natal orsupervenin) disalin) factor or an adverse inte)ral element inrespondentKs character that e0ectively incapacitated him from acceptin)and complyin) with the essential marital oli)ations4

9SS;: e when the ndin)s of the appellatecourt )o eyond the issues of the case# run contrary to the admissions of theparties to the case# or fail to notice certain relevant facts which# if properlyconsidered# will ?ustify a di0erent conclusion@ or when there is a misappreciationof facts# which are unavailin) in the instant case4

There is hardly any dout that the intendment of the law has een to conne the

meanin) of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personalitydisorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inaility to )ivemeanin) and si)nicance to the marria)e4

*espondentKs alle)ed mi3ed personality disorder# the leaving-the-houseattitude whenever they 6uarreled# the violent tendencies durin) epilepticattac>s# the se3ual indelity# the aandonment and lac> of support# and hispreference to spend more time with his and mates than his family# are notrooted on some deilitatin) psycholo)ical condition ut a mere refusal orunwillin)ness to assume the essential oli)ations of marria)e4 Article +, shouldnot to e confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital ond at the time thecauses manifest themselves4 Neither it is to e e6uated with le)al separation# inwhich the )rounds need not e rooted in psycholo)ical incapacity ut on physicalviolence# moral pressure# moral corruption# civil interdiction# dru) addiction#
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_162368_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jul2006/gr_162368_2006.html#fnt4


20/26

!G

haitual alcoholism# se3ual indelity# aandonment and the li>e4 P;T9T97N2;N9;2 OCTOBER 31, 2006FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari under *ule 5" of the *ules ofCourt raisin) a 6uestion of law: 2oes a previous nal ?ud)ment denyin) a petitionfor declaration of nullity on the )round of psycholo)ical incapacity ar asuse6uent petition for declaration of nullity on the )round of lac> of marria)elicense

7ctoer !5# 1$$" ' 7scar 8allion led a petition efore *TC see>in)

declaration of nullity of his marria)e with ;ditha Alcantara under Art4 +, ofFamily Code

Novemer 11# 1$$& ' *TC denied petition on the )round that the petitioner

failed to provide sucient evidence to warrant the relief he is see>in)4

(une 11# 1$$% ' Appeal led with CA was dismissed for failure to pay

doc>et and other lawful fees with re)lamentary period

(uly 1!# 1$$$ ' petitioner led another petition see>in) nullity of marria)e#

alle)in) that marria)e was void a initio due to asence of marria)elicense4 *espondent led a motion to dimiss on Au)ust 1+# 1$$$# on the)rounds of res ?udicata and forum shoppin)

7ctoer %# 1$$$ ' *TC )ranted respondents motion to dismiss

Accordin) to 8allion# relief prayed for is the same ut the cause of actionis di0erent@ res ?udicata1does not apply

9SS;: should the matter of the invalidity of a marria)e due to the asence of anessential re6uisite prescried y article 5 of the family code e raised in thesame proceedin) where the marria)e is ein) impu)ned on the )round of apartys psycholo)ical incapacity under article +, of the family code

=;2: The SC held that in civil case no4 Sp 5+51-$"# however# petitionerimpliedly conceded that the marria)e had een solemnied and celerated inaccordance with law4 Petitioner is now ound y this admission4 The alle)edasence of a marria)e license which petitioner raises now could have eenpresented and heard in the earlier case4 Suce it to state that parties are oundnot only as re)ards every matter o0ered and received to sustain or defeat theirclaims or demand ut as to any other admissile matter which mi)ht have eeno0ered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have een ad?ud)edin that case

Res judicata in this sense re6uires the concurrence of the followin) re6uisites: .1/the former ?ud)ment is fnal@ .!/ it is rendered y a court havin) jurisdictionoverthe su?ect matter and the parties@ .+/ it is a ?ud)ment or an order onthemerits@and .5/ there is -- etween the rst and the second actions -- identityof parties#of su?ect matter# and of causes of action4 All three re6uisites are present in theinstant case4 9f same facts or evidence would sustain oth petitions# the twoactions are considered the same and a ?ud)ment in the rst case is a ar to thesuse6uent action4

Petitioner has the same cause of actionRnullity of said marria)eRthe )rounds orasis are ?ust di0erent4 Petition denied due to lac> of merit

1

A matter ValreadyW ?ud)ed# and may refer to two thin)s: in oth civil lawand commonlawle)al systems# a case in which there has een a nal ?ud)ment and is no lon)ersu?ect to appeal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appealhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal


21/26

!1

CATALAN V CA 514 SCRA 607 514 SCRA 607 @EBRUAR 6, 2007FACTS: This petition for review assails the 2ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-M4*4 CL No4 ,$%&" dated Au)ust ,# !GG5# which reversed the 2ecision of the*e)ional Trial Court .*TC/ of 2a)upan City# ranch 55# in Civil Case No4 2-1G,+,#declarin) the marria)e etween respondents 7rlando 4 Catalan and 8erope ;4ra)ana void on the )round of i)amy# as well as the *esolution dated (anuary! !GG"# which denied the motion for reconsideration4

(une 5# 1$"G ' petitioner Felicitas Amor married 7rlando Catalan in

Pan)asinan and mi)rated to the S soon after .ecame S citiens/4 April1$%%# oth divorced

(une 1,# 1$%% ' 7rlando married 8erope ut since the latter had a prior

susistin) marria)e# petitioner led for declaration of nullity of marria)ea)ainst 7rlando and 8erope with dama)es

*espondents .7rlando and 8erope/ led motion to dismiss due to lac> of

action as petitioner was not a real party-in-interest ut was denied

7ctoer 1G# !GGG ' marria)e etween 7rlando and 8erope was declared

void a initio y *TC

CA reversed *TC decision and declared marria)e was still susistin)

9SS;:


22/26

!!

$ years couple stayed with 8anolitos parents4 8anolito was ?oless#

)amler and addict4

Au)ust !G# 1$$% ' aila left 8anilito and moved ac> to her parents house

8arch $# 1$$$ ' aila led for petition for declaration of nullity of marria)e

citin) Art +,

aila presented 2r Nedy Taya) .clinical psycholo)ist/ and declared thatfrom the psych tests and interviews on aila that 8anolito .whom she didnot personally e3amine/ was psycholo)ically incapacitated4 =is anti-socialpersonality disorder appears to e )rave and is deeply VimmersedW withinthe system4 9t continues to inOuence the individual until the later sta)e oflife4

9SS;: as anurse@ left in 1$&5 a)ain4 9n 1$%$# she was already a S citien


23/26

!+

Petitioner led for declaration of nullity of marria)e# alle)in) that Norma

was horried at the mere idea of havin) children and also aandoned himwhen she left for the S

Norma denied that she refused to have a child# alle)in) that petitioner was

unfaithful and had two a0airs with di0erent women and had children with

them4 (une !!# 1$$" ' *TC denied ernardinos petition citin) that there is no

evidence of psycholo)ical incapacity on Norma .no )ravity# ?uridicalantecedence and incuraility/

Au)ust "# 1$$$ ' CA armed *TC decision citin) 8olina and Santos)uidelines

9SS;: ends# and on wee>days he was at his parents house4ynette soon discovered that 8artini was a Hmamas oyI

pon the insistence of 8artinis mother# his allotment was divided e6ually

etween her and ynette

(anuary 1$$$ ' No information aout 8artini4 ynette also stoppedreceivin) her share of the allotment and upon in6uiry with 8artinis

employer# she found out that he was in Alaan)# 8untinlupa


24/26

!5

7ctoer 1!# !GGG ' ynette led a complaint for the declaration of the

nullity of marria)e on the asis of 8artinis psycholo)ical incapacity tocomply with the essential marital duties and oli)ations as stated in Art4,%-&G of the Family Code

Summons were served upon 8artini to which he did not le any response4

No collusion was also estalished4 7ctoer 15# 1$$$ ' ynette learned that 8artini declared in his

employment records that he was S9NM; and named his mother asprincipal allotee

*espondent presented the letter of clinical psycholo)ist who evaluated theehavior of 8artini4 ased on the report# 8artini shows immaturepersonality disorder# dependency patterns and self-centered motives4 Thesituation is serious# )rave# e3istin) already durin) the adolescent periodand incurale4 As such# 8artini is psycholo)ically incapacitated to complywith the essential oli)ations in marria)e and family

(anuary !# !GG! ' Ceu City *TC declared that marria)e void since 8artini

was psycholo)ically incapacitated to comply with the essential martialoli)ations of marria)e and that same incapacity e3isted at the time of theceleration of the marria)e

9SS;: e4

The term psycholo)ical incapacity to e a )round for the nullity of marria)eunder Article +, of the Family Code# refers to a serious psycholo)ical illnessaictin) a party even efore the celeration of the marria)e4 9t is a malady so)rave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties andresponsiilities of the matrimonial ond one is aout to assume4 As all peoplemay have certain 6uir>s and idiosyncrasies# or isolated characteristics associatedwith certain personality disorders# there is hardly a dout that the intendment ofthe law has een to conne the meanin) of psycholo)ical incapacity to themost serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utterinsensitivity or inaility to )ive meanin) and si)nicance to the marria)e4 VTWheroot cause must e identied as a psycholo)ical illness# and its incapacitatin)

nature must e fully e3plained4

For psycholo)ical incapacity to render a marria)e void a initio it must echaracteried y:

14 Mravity ' must e )rave and serious such that the party would eincapale of carryin) out the ordinary duties re6uired in a marria)e

!4 (uridical antecedence ' it must e rooted in the history of the partyantedatin) the marria)e# althou)h overt manifestations may emer)e onlyafter the marria)e

+4 9ncuraility ' must e incurale# or even if it were otherwise# the curewould e eyond the means of the party involved


25/26

!"

9n petitions for the declaration of nullity of marria)e# the urden of provin) thenullity of marria)e lies on the plainti04 Any dout should e resolved in favor ofthe e3istence and continuation of the marria)e# and a)ainst the dissolution andnullity .semper praesumitur pro matrimonio/

As seen in this case# ynette failed to provide sucient evidence to prove8artinis psycholo)ical incapacity4 796 APRIL 15, 2010FACTS: Petition to review *TC decision on Novemer +G# !GG5 concernin) thedeclaration of nullity of marria)e etween Silvino i)eralde .petitioner/ and 8ayAscension A4 Patlin)hu) .respondent/

7ctoer +# 1$%5 ' Silvino and 8ay )ot married and had four children4

*espondent displayed si)ns of immaturity# ne)li)ence# indelity andirresponsiility soon after

Silvino was reluctant to leave his wife ecause of his love for her4 =e )ave

her another chance after ndin) out she was sleepin) with another manut after a few months# 8ay was ac> to her old ways and it seemedimpossile for her to chan)e

Prior to lin) the complaint a)ainst Patalin)hu)# i)eralde consulted 2r

Tina Nicdao-asilio .psycholo)ist/4 ased on the psycholo)ical evaluation#8ay was psycholo)ically incapacitated to perform her essential martialoli)ations@ that the incapacity started when she was youn) and ecamemanifest after marria)e@ and that the same was serious and incurale

7ctoer !!# 1$$$ ' *TC decalared the marria)e of i)eralde and

Patalin)hu) ased on the psycholo)ical evaluation report of 2r4 asilio

CA reversed the *TC decision on the )rounds that respondents alle)ed

se3ual indelity# emotional immaturity and irresponsiility do notconstitute psycholo)ical incapacity within the contemplation of the FamilyCode and that the psycholo)ist failed to identify and prove the root causethereof or that the incapacity was medically or clinically permanent orincurale4

9SS;: ewise e void even if

such incapacity ecomes manifest only after its solemniation

Psycholo)ical incapacity re6uired y Art4 +, must e characteried y .a/ )ravity#./ ?uridical antecedence and .c/ incuraility4 The incapacity must e )rave orserious such that the party would e incapale of carryin) out the ordinaryduties re6uired in marria)e4 9t must e rooted in the history of the partyantedatin) the marria)e# althou)h the overt manifestations may emer)e onlyafter the marria)e4 9t must e incurale or# even if it were otherwise# the curewould e eyond the means of the party involved4&The Court li>ewise laid downthe )uidelines in resolvin) petitions for declaration of nullity of marria)e# asedon Article +, of the Family Code# in *epulic v4 Court of Appeals4%*elevant to this

petition are the followin):
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_168796_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_168796_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_168796_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_168796_2010.html#fnt8


26/26

!,

14 The urden of proof to show the nullity of the marria)e elon)s to theplainti0

!4 The root cause of the psycholo)ical incapacity must e medically orclinically identied# alle)ed in the complaint# suciently proven y e3pertsand clearly e3plained in the decision

+4 The incapacity must e proven to e e3istin) at the time of theceleration of the marria)e

54 Such incapacity must also e shown to e medically or clinicallypermanent or incurale

"4 Such illness must e )rave enou)h to rin) aout the disaility of theparty to assume the essential oli)ations of marria)e

Petitioners testimony did not prove the root cause# )ravity and incuraility ofPatalin)hu)s condition4 ;ven 2r4 Nicdao-asilio failed to show the root cause ofher psycholo)ical incapacity4 The root cause of the psycholo)ical incapacitymust e identied as a psycholo)ical illness and its incapacitatin) nature muste fully estalished y the evidences presented

Digest Legmed

Documents

Transcript of Digest Legmed