persons marriage case 3 - 2

7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2

1/34

5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 179922 December 16,

2008

JUAN DE DIOS CAROS,petitioner,

vs.

!EICIDAD SANDO"A, #$%o &'o(' #%

!EICIDAD S. "DA. DE CAROS or

!EICIDAD SANDO"A CAROS or!EICIDAD SANDO"A "DA. DE

CAROS, #') TEO!IO CAROS II,

responents.

D E C I S I O N

RE*ES, R.T.,J.+

ON* # %o-%ecan initiate an action to

sever the !arital bon for !arria"es

sole!ni#e )-r'/ e eec34 o e!#m$4 Co)e, e$cept cases co!!ence

ror o M#rc 15, 200. The nullit% an

annul!ent of a !arria"e cannot be eclare

in a &u"!ent on the pleain"s, su!!ar%

&u"!ent, or confession of &u"!ent.

Te !#c%

'. Spouses (eli$ ). *arlos an (elipa

+le!ia ie intestate. The% left si$ parcelsof lan to their co!pulsor% heirs, Teo$o

C#r$o%an eo'er J-#' De Do%

C#r$o%.

. Durin" the lifeti!e of (eli$ *arlos, he

a"ree to transfer his estate to Teofilo. The

a"ree!ent -as !ae in orer to avoi the

pa%!ent of inheritance ta$es. Teofilo, in

turn, unertoo to eliver an turn over the

share of the other le"al heir, petitioner /uan

De Dios *arlos.

+ventuall%, the first three 012 parcels of lan-ere transferre an re"istere in the na!e

of Teofilo. These three 012 lots are no-

covere b% Transfer *ertificate of Title

0T*T2 No. 1343 issue b% the Re"istr% of

Dees of Maati *it% T*T No. '1678'

issue b% the Re"istr% of Dees of Maati

*it% an T*T No. '16754 issue b% the

Re"istr% of Dees of Maati *it%.

Parcel No. 3 -as re"istere in the na!e ofpetitioner. The lot is no- covere b% T*T

No. '8737' issue b% the Re"istr% of Dees

of Maati *it%.

1. On Ma% '1, '66, Teofilo ie intestate.

He -as survive b% re%o')e'% !e$c)#)

an their son, Teo$o C#r$o% II0Teofilo II2.

9pon Teofilo:s eath, Parcel Nos. 5 ; 8

-ere re"istere in the na!e of responent.

3. In '663, petitioner institute a suit a"ainst

responents before the RT*in Muntinlupa

*it%. In the sai case, the parties sub!itte

an cause the approval of a partial

co!pro!ise a"ree!ent.

5. Petitioner an responents entere into

t-o !ore contracts in


2/34

In his co!plaint, petitioner asserte that the

m#rr#/e be(ee' % $#e broer Teo$o

#') re%o')e' !e$c)#) (#% # '-$$4in

vie- of the #b%e'ce o e re-re)

m#rr#/e $ce'%e.

He lie-ise !aintaine # % )ece#%e)

broer (#% 'eer e '#-r#$ 'or e

#)o3e #er o re%o')e' Teo$o

C#r$o% II.

>. On October '8, '665, responents enie

the !aterial aver!ents of petitioner:s

co!plaint. Responents contene that the

earth 0(noun)an insufcient quantity or

number2 of etails re"arin" the re=uisite!arria"e license i not invaliate

(elicia:s !arria"e to Teofilo.Responents

eclare that Teofilo II -as the $$e/m#e

c$)of the ecease Teofilo *arlos -ith

another -o!an.

)ut before the parties coul even procee to

pre?trial, re%o')e'% mo3e) or %-mm#r4

-)/me'.


3/34

. Declarin" that the efenant

!inor, Teo$o S. C#r$o% II, % 'o

e '#-r#$, $$e/m#e, or $e/#$$4

#)oe) c$) o e $#e Teo$o E.

C#r$o%09nerscorin"

supplie2

The ne- Rule reco"ni#es that the husban

an the -ife are the sole architects of a

health%, lovin", peaceful !arria"e. The% are

the onl% ones -ho can ecie -hen an ho-

to buil the founations of !arria"e.The

spouses alone are the en"ineers of their

!arital life. The% are si!ultaneousl% the

irectors an actors of their !atri!onial

true?to?life pla%. Hence, the% alone can an

shoul ecie -hen to tae a cut, but onl% in

accorance -ith the "rouns allo-e b%

la-.

The innovation incorporate in A.M. No.

021110SC %e% or # )em#rc#o' $'e

be(ee' m#rr#/e% co3ere) b4 e !#m$4

Co)ean o%e %o$em'Be) -')er e

C3$ Co)e.The Rule e$tens onl% to

!arria"es entere into urin" the effectivit%

of the (a!il% *oe -hich too effect on

A-/-% , 1988.'4

The avent of the Rule on Declaration of


9/34

an is prospective in its application.

09nerscorin" supplie2

Petitioner co!!ence the nullit% of

!arria"e case a"ainst responent (elicia

in '665. The !arria"e in controvers% -ascelebrate on Ma% '3, '68. Chich la-

-oul "overn epens upon -hen the

!arria"e too place.1

The !arria"e havin" been sole!ni#e prior

to the effectivit% of the (a!il% *oe, the

applicable la- is the *ivil *oe -hich -as

the la- in effect at the ti!e of its

celebration.3)ut the *ivil *oe is silent as

to -ho !a% brin" an action to eclare the!arria"e voi. Does this !ean that an%

person can brin" an action for the

eclaration of nullit% of !arria"eG

:e re%o') ' e 'e/#3e. The absence

of a provision in the *ivil *oe cannot be

construe as a license for an% person to

institute a nullit% of !arria"e case. Such

person !ust appear to be the part% -ho

stans to be benefite or in&ure b% the

&u"!ent in the suit, or the part% entitle to

the avails of the suit.5+lse-ise state,

plaintiff !ust be the real part%?in?interest.

(or it is basic in proceural la- that ever%

action !ust be prosecute an efene in

the na!e of the real part%?in?interest.8

Interest -ithin the !eanin" of the rule

!eans !aterial interest or an interest in

issue to be affecte b% the ecree or

&u"!ent of the case, as istin"uishe fro!!ere curiosit% about the =uestion involve

or a !ere inciental interest.One havin" no

!aterial interest to protect cannot invoe the

&urisiction of the court as plaintiff in an

action.Chen plaintiff is not the real part%?

in?interest, the case is is!issible on the

"roun of lac of cause of action.>

Illu!inatin" on this point isAmor%Catalan

v. Court of Appeals,4-here the *ourt helB

True, uner the Ne- *ivil *oe

-hich is the la- in force at the ti!e

the responents -ere !arrie, or

even in the (a!il% *oe, there is no

specific provision as to -ho can file

a petition to eclare the nullit% of

!arria"e ho-ever, onl% a part% -ho

can e!onstrate )proper interest)

can file the sa!e. < petition to

eclare the nullit% of !arria"e, liean% other actions, must be

prosecuted or defended in the name

of the real party%in%interest an must

be based on a cause of action. Thus,

inNi*al v. +adayog, the *ourt hel

that the chilren have the personalit%

to file the petition to eclare the

nullit% of !arria"e of their ecease

father to their step!other as it affects

their successional ri"hts.

$ $ $ $

In fine, petitioner:s personalit% to file

the petition to eclare the nullit% of

!arria"e cannot be ascertaine

because of the absence of the ivorce

ecree an the forei"n la- allo-in"

it. Hence, a re!an of the case to the

trial court for reception of aitional

evience is necessar% to eter!ine-hether responent Orlano -as

"rante a ivorce ecree an -hether

the forei"n la- -hich "rante the

sa!e allo-s or restricts re!arria"e.

If it is prove that a vali ivorce

ecree -as obtaine an the sa!e

%
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt28


10/34

i not allo- responent Orlano:s

re!arria"e, then the trial court

shoul eclare responent:s !arria"e

as bi"a!ous an voi ab initiobut

reuce the a!ount of !oral

a!a"es fro! P177,777.77 toP57,777.77 an e$e!plar% a!a"es

fro! P77,777.77 to P5,777.77. On

the contrar%, if it is prove that a

vali ivorce ecree -as obtaine

-hich allo-e Orlano to re!arr%,

then the trial court !ust is!iss the

instant petition to eclare nullit% of

!arria"e on the "roun that

petitioner (elicitas

lacs le"al personalit% to file thesa!e.609nerscorin" supplie2

III. Te c#%e m-% be rem#')e) o

)eerm'e (eer or 'o eo'er % #

re#$#r4''ere% o %ee& e

)ec$#r#o' o '-$$4 o e m#rr#/e '

co'ro3er%4.

In the case at bench, the recors reveal that

-hen Teofilo ie intestate in '66, his onl%

survivin" co!pulsor% heirs are responent

(elicia an their son, Teofilo II. 9ner the

la- on succession, successional ri"hts are

trans!itte fro! the !o!ent of eath of the

eceent an the co!pulsor% heirs are calle

to succee b% operation of la-.17

9pon Teofilo:s eath in '66, all his

propert%, ri"hts an obli"ations to the e$tent

of the value of the inheritance are

trans!itte to his co!pulsor% heirs. Theseheirs -ere responents (elicia an Teofilo

II, as the survivin" spouse an chil,

respectivel%.

of the *ivil *oe outline -ho

are co!pulsor% heirs, to -itB

0'2 @e"iti!ate chilren an

escenants, -ith respect to their

le"iti!ate parents an ascenants

02 In efault of the fore"oin",

le"iti!ate parents an ascenants,-ith respect to their le"iti!ate

chilren an escenants

012 The -io- or -io-er

032


11/34

collateral relatives fro! succeein" to the

estate of the eceent. The presence of

le"iti!ate, ille"iti!ate, or aopte chil or

chilren of the ecease preclues

succession b% collateral relatives.1

*onversel%, if there are no escenants,ascenants, ille"iti!ate chilren, or a

survivin" spouse, the collateral relatives

shall succee to the entire estate of the

eceent.11

If responent Teofilo II is eclare an

finall% proven not to be the le"iti!ate,

ille"iti!ate, or aopte son of Teofilo,

petitioner -oul then have a personalit% to

see the nullit% of !arria"e of his eceasebrother -ith responent (elicia. This is

so, consierin" that co$$#er#$ re$#3e%, $&e

# broer #') %%er, #c-re %-cce%%o'#$

r/ o3er e e%#e e )ece)e' )e%

(o- %%-e #') (o- #%ce')#'% '

e )rec $'e.

The recors reveal that Teofilo -as

preecease b% his parents. He ha no other

siblin"s but petitioner. Thus, if Teofilo II is

finall% foun an proven to be not a

le"iti!ate, ille"iti!ate, or aopte son of

Teofilo, petitioner succees to the other half

of the estate of his brother, the first half

bein" allotte to the -io- pursuant to

- e RTC % %rc$4

'%r-ce) o )%m%% e '-$$4 o

m#rr#/e c#%e or $#c& o c#-%e o #co'

% ro3e' b4 e3)e'ce # Teo$o II % #

$e/m#e, $$e/m#e, or $e/#$$4 #)oe)

%o' o Teo$o C#r$o%, e )ece#%e)

broer o eo'er.

I". Rem#') o e c#%e re/#r)'/ e

-e%o' o $#o' o re%o')e' Teo$o

II % roer #') ' or)er. Tere % # 'ee

to vacate the isposition of the trial court as

to the other causes of action before it.

Peo'er )) 'o #%%/' #% error or

'ero%e #% %%-e e r-$'/ o e CA o'

e rem#') o e c#%e co'cer''/ e

$#o' o re%o')e' Teo$o II. This

11
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt35


12/34

not-ithstanin", Ce shoul not leave the

!atter han"in" in li!bo.

This *ourt has the authorit% to revie-

!atters not specificall% raise or assi"ne as

error b% the parties, if their consieration isnecessar% in arrivin" at a &ust resolution of

the case.18

Ce a"ree -ith the *< that -ithout trial on

the !erits havin" been conucte in the

case, petitioner:s bare alle"ation that

responent Teofilo II -as aopte fro! an

ini"ent couple is insufficient to support a

total forfeiture of ri"hts arisin" fro! his

putative filiation. Ho-ever, Ce are notincline to support its pronounce!ent that

the eclaration of responent (elicia as to

the ille"iti!ate filiation of responent

Teofilo II is !ore creible. (or the "uiance

of the appellate court, such eclaration of

responent (elicia shoul not be affore

creence. Ce re!in the *< of the "uarant%

provie b% . The chil shall be

consiere le"iti!ate althou"h the

!other !a% have eclare a"ainst its

le"iti!ac% or !a% have been

sentence as an aulteress.

09nerscorin" supplie2

It is stresse that (elicia:s eclaration

a"ainst the le"iti!ate status of Teofilo II is

the ver% act that is proscribe b%


13/34

TH+ HONOR


14/34

@eouel appeale to the *ourt of


15/34

#'e)#'/ e m#rr#/e, althou"h the overt

!anifestations !a% e!er"e onl% after the

!arria"e an m-% be 'c-r#b$eor, even if it

-ere other-ise, e c-re (o-$) be be4o') e

me#'% o e #r4 '3o$3e).

EVoi an Voiable Marria"es in the (a!il%

*oe an their Parallels in *anon @a-,E =uotin"

fro! the Dia"nostic Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorer b% the


16/34

sub&ect to stipulation, e$cept that !arria"e

settle!ents !a% fi$ the propert% relations urin"

the !arria"e -ithin the li!its provie b% this

*oe. 0+!phasis supplie.2

Our *onstitution is no less e!phaticB

Sec. '. The State reco"ni#es the (ilipino fa!il%

as the founation of the nation.


17/34

C;I MING TSOI,petitioner,

vs.

COURT O! APPEAS #') GINA AO

TSOI, responents.

TORRES, JR.,J.:

Man has not invente a reliable co!pass b%

-hich to steer a !arria"e in its &ourne% over

trouble -aters. @a-s are see!in"l% inae=uate.

Over ti!e, !uch reliance has been place in the

-ors of the unseen han of Hi! -ho create

all thin"s.

!#c%+

'. On Ma% , '644, the plaintiff !arrie the

efenant at the Manila *atheral, . . .

Intra!uros Manila, as evience b% their

Marria"e *ontract. 0+$h. E


18/34

March '5, '646, there -as no se$ual contact

bet-een the!. )ut, the reason for this,

accorin" to the efenant, -as that ever%ti!e

he -ants to have se$ual intercourse -ith his

-ife,

she al-a%s avoie hi! an -henever hecaresses her private parts,

she al-a%s re!ove his hans.

The efenant clai!s, that he force his -ife to

have se$ -ith hi! onl% once but he i not

continue because she -as shain" an she i

not lie it. So he stoppe.

There are t-o 02 reasons, accorin" to the

efenant , -h% the plaintiff file this case

a"ainst hi!, an these areB

0'2 that she is afrai that she -ill be force to

return the pieces of &e-elr% of his !other, an,

02 that her husban, the efenant, -ill

consu!!ate their !arria"e.

The efenant insiste that their !arria"e -ill

re!ain vali because the% are still ver% %oun"

an there is still a chance to overco!e their

ifferences.

The efenant sub!itte hi!self to a ph%sicale$a!ination. His penis -as e$a!ine b% Dr.

Ser"io


19/34

in affir!in" the annul!ent of the !arria"e

bet-een the parties ecree b% the lo-er court

-ithout full% satisf%in" itself that there -as no

collusion bet-een the!.

Ce fin the petition to be bereft 0deprived o

or lac"ing something2 of !erit.

Petitioner contens that bein" the plaintiff in

*ivil *ase No. L?46?1'3', private responent

has the buren of provin" the alle"ations in her

co!plaint that since there -as no inepenent

evience to prove the alle"e non?coitus

bet-een the parties, there re!ains no other basis

for the court:s conclusion e$cept the a!ission

of petitioner that public polic% shoul ai acts

intene to valiate !arria"e an shoul retar

acts intene to invaliate the! that theconclusion ra-n b% the trial court on the

a!issions an confessions of the parties in

their pleain"s an in the course of the trial is

!isplace since it coul have been a prouct of

collusion an that in actions for annul!ent of

!arria"e, the !aterial facts alle"e in the

co!plaint shall al-a%s be prove.

Section ', Rule '6 of the Rules of *ourt reasB

Section '. /u"!ent on the pleain"s. Chere

an ans-er fails to tener an issue, or other-ise

a!its the !aterial alle"ations of the averse

part%:s pleain", the court !a%, on !otion of

that part%, irect &u"!ent on such pleain". )ut

in actions for annul!ent of !arria"e or for le"al

separation the !aterial facts alle"e in the

co!plaint shall al-a%s be prove.

The fore"oin" provision pertains to a &u"!ent

on the pleain"s. Chat sai provision sees to

prevent is annul!ent of !arria"e -ithout trial.

The assaile ecision -as not base on such a

&u"!ent on the pleain"s. Chen privateresponent testifie uner oath before the trial

court an -as cross?e$a!ine b% oath before the

trial court an -as cross?e$a!ine b% the

averse part%, she thereb% presente evience in

for! of a testi!on%.


20/34

se$ -ith each other constitutes ps%cholo"ical

incapacit% of both. He points out as error the

failure of the trial court to !ae Ea cate"orical

finin" about the alle"e ps%cholo"ical

incapacit% an an in?epth anal%sis of the

reasons for such refusal -hich !a% not be

necessaril% ue to ph%scholo"ical isorersE

because there !i"ht have been other reasons,

i.e., ph%sical isorers, such as aches, pains or

other isco!forts, -h% private responent

-oul not -ant to have se$ual intercourse fro!

Ma% , '644 to March '5, '646, in a short span

of '7 !onths.

(irst, it !ust be state that neither the trial court

nor the responent court !ae a finin" on -ho

bet-een petitioner an private responent

refuses to have se$ual contact -ith the other.The fact re!ains, ho-ever, that there has never

been coitus 0(Noun)'he act o sexualprocreation between a man and a woman

requiring insertion o the penis into the vagina

and culminating in eaculation o semen*2

bet-een the!.


21/34

of her !arria"e -ere frustrate b% her husban:s

inae=uac%. *onsierin" the innate !oest% of

the (ilipino -o!an, it is har to believe that she

-oul e$pose her private life to public scrutin%

an fabricate testi!on% a"ainst her husban if it

-ere not necessar% to put her life in orer an

put to rest her !arital status.

Ce are not i!presse b% efenant:s clai! that

-hat the evience prove is the un-illin"ness or

lac of intention to perfor! the se$ual act,

-hich is not ph%cholo"ical incapacit%, an

-hich can be achieve Ethrou"h proper

!otivation.E


22/34

REPU>IC O! T;E P;IIPPINES,

3%.

COURT O! APPEAS #') RORIDE

OA"IANO MOINA, re%o')e'%.

P


23/34

012 Roriel:s failure to run the househol an

hanle their finances.

Durin" the pre?trial on October '>, '667, the

follo-in" -ere stipulateB

'. That the parties herein -ere le"all% !arrieon


24/34

neglectb% the parties to the !arria"e of their

responsibilities an uties, but a defectin their

ps%cholo"ical nature -hich reners the!

incapable of perfor!in" such !arital

responsibilities an uties.E

"he Court/s Ruling

The petition is !eritorious.

In0eouel #antos vs. Court of Appeals8this

*ourt, speain" thru Mr. /ustice /ose *. Vitu",

rule that Eps%cholo"ical incapacit% shoul refer

to no less than a !ental 0nor ph%sical2 incapacit%

. . . an that 0t2here is harl% an% oubt that the

inten!ent of the la- has been to confine the

!eanin" of :ps%cholo"ical incapacit%: to the

!ost serious cases of personalit% isorers

clearl% e!onstrative of an utter insensitivit% orinabilit% to "ive !eanin" an si"nificance to the

!arria"e.

This ps%cholo"ic conition !ust e$ist at the

ti!e the !arria"e is celebrate.E *itin" Dr.

Feraro Veloso, a for!er presiin" &u"e of the

Metropolitan Marria"e Tribunal of the *atholic

/ustice Vitu" -rote that

Ethe ps%cholo"ical incapacit% !ust be

characteri#e b%

0a2 "ravit%,

0b2 &uriical anteceence, an

0c2 incurabilit%.E

On the other han, in the present case, there is

no clear sho-in" to us that the ps%cholo"ical

efect spoen of is an incapacit%.

I #e#r% o -% o be more o # )c-$4,E if

not outri"ht ErefusalE or Ene"lectE in the

perfor!ance of so!e !arital obli"ations.

Mere sho-in" of Eirreconciliable ifferencesE

an Econflictin" personalitiesE in no -ise

constitutes ps%cholo"ical incapacit%.

It is not enou"h to prove that the parties faile to

!eet their responsibilities an uties as !arrie

persons it is essential that the% !ust be sho-n

to be incapableof oin" so, ue to so!e

ps%cholo"ical 0nor ph%sical2 illness.

The evience auce b% responent !erel%

sho-e that she an her husban coul nor "et

alon" -ith each other. There ha been no

sho-in" of the "ravit% of the proble! neitherits &uriical anteceence nor its incurabilit%. The

e$pert testi!on% of Dr. Sison sho-e no

incurable ps%chiatric isorer but onl%

inco!patibilit%, not ps%cholo"ical incapacit%.

Dr. Sison testifieB4

*O9RT

L It is therefore the reco!!enation of the

ps%chiatrist base on %our finin"s that it is

better for the *ourt to annul 0sic2 the !arria"eG

< es, our Honor.

L There is no hope for the !arria"eG

< There is no hope, the !an is also livin" -ith

another -o!an.

L Is it also the stan of the ps%chiatrist that the

parties are ps%cholo"icall% unfit for each other

but the% are ps%cholo"icall% fit -ith other

partiesG

< es, our Honor.

L Neither are the% ps%cholo"icall% unfit for

their professionsG

< es, our Honor.

The *ourt has no !ore =uestions.

In the case of Re%nalo, there is no sho-in" that

his alle"e personalit% traits -ere constitutive of

ps%cholo"ical incapacit% e$istin" at the ti!e of

!arria"e celebration. Chile so!e effort -as

!ae to prove that there -as a failure to fulfillpre?nuptial i!pressions of Ethou"htfulness an

"entlenessE on Re%nalo:s part of bein"

Econservative, ho!el% an intelli"entE on the

part of Roriel, such failure of e$pectation is nor

inicative of anteceent ps%cholo"ical

incapacit%. If at all, it !erel% sho-s love:s

24


25/34

te!porar% blinness to the faults an ble!ishes

of the belove.

Durin" its eliberations, the *ourt ecie to "o

be%on !erel% rulin" on the facts of this case

vis%a%vise$istin" la- an &urispruence. In vie-

of the novelt% of


26/34

occasional e!otional outburstsE cannot be

accepte as rootcauses. The illness !ust be

sho-n as o-nri"ht incapacit% or inabilit%, nor a

refusal, ne"lect or ifficult%, !uch less ill -ill.

In other -ors, there is a natal or supervenin"

isablin" factor in the person, an averse

inte"ral ele!ent in the personalit% structure that

effectivel% incapacitates the person fro! reall%

acceptin" an thereb% co!pl%in" -ith the

obli"ations essential to !arria"e.

082 The essential !arital obli"ations !ust be

those e!brace b% ' of the

(a!il% *oe as re"ars the husban an -ife as

-ell as


27/34

>RENDA >. MARCOS,petitioner,

vs.

:ISON G. MARCOS, respondent.

D + * I S I O N

PANGANI>AN,J.:

Ps%cholo"ical incapacit%, as a "roun for

eclarin" the nullit% of a !arria"e, !a% be

establishe b% the totalit% of evience

presente. There is no re=uire!ent,

ho-ever, that the responent shoul be

e$a!ine b% a ph%sician or a ps%cholo"ist

as a conditio sine qua nonfor such

eclaration.

The *ase

)efore us is a Petition for Revie- on

Certiorariuner Rule 35 of the Rules of

*ourt, assailin" the /ul% 3, '664 Decision'

of the *ourt of


28/34

uner the Philippine 7 Dais% Street, Hulo

)liss, Manalu%on",a housin" unit -hich

she ac=uire fro! the )liss Develop!ent*orporation -hen she -as still sin"le.

E


29/34

abusive to the! 0+$h. 99, Recors, pp. 45?

'772.

EThe appellee sub!itte herself to

ps%cholo"ist Nativia


30/34

EI. Chether or not the Honorable

*ourt of


31/34

assu!in", or no-in" the!, coul

not have "iven vali assu!ption

thereof. 2 Interpretations "iven b% the

National


32/34

042 The trial court !ust orer the

prosecutin" attorne% or fiscal an the

Solicitor Feneral to appear as

counsel for the state. No ecision

shall be hane o-n unless the

Solicitor Feneral issues acertification, -hich -ill be =uote in

the ecision, briefl% statin" therein

his reasons for his a"ree!ent or

opposition, as the case !a% be, to the

petition. The Solicitor Feneral, alon"

-ith the prosecutin" attorne%, shall

sub!it to the court such certification

-ithin fifteen 0'52 a%s fro! the ate

the case is ee!e sub!itte for

resolution of the court. The SolicitorFeneral shall ischar"e the

e=uivalent function of the defensor

vinculiconte!plate uner *anon

'765.E'7

The "uielines incorporate the three basic

re=uire!ents earlier !anate b% the *ourt

in #antos v. Court of Appeals-''

E%4co$o/c#$ 'c##c4 m-% be

c#r#cerBe) b4

0a2 "ravit%

0b2 &uriical anteceence, an

0c2 incurabilit%.E

The fore"oin" "uielines o not re=uire that

a ph%sician e$a!ine the person to be

eclare ps%cholo"icall% incapacitate.

In fact, the root cause !a% be E!eicall% or

clinically ientifie.E Chat is i!portant is

the presence of evience that can ae=uatel%

establish the part%:spsychologicalconition.

(or inee, if the totalit% of evience

presente is enou"h to sustain a finin" of

ps%cholo"ical incapacit%, then actual

!eical e$a!ination of the person

concerne nee not be resorte to.

Main IssueB "otality of $vidence &resented

The !ain =uestion, then, is -hether the

totalit% of the evience presente in the

present case ?? incluin" the testi!onies of

petitioner, the co!!on chilren, petitioner:s

sister an the social -orer ?? -as enou"h to

sustain a finin" that responent -as

ps%cholo"icall% incapacitate.

:e r-$e ' e 'e/#3e.


33/34


34/34

persons marriage case 3 - 2

Documents