santos vs. ca (g.r. no. 112019)

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/santos-vs-ca-gr-no-112019 1/18

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1121! "anua#$ %& 1!!'

(EOUE( SANTOS& petitione#&)s.T*E *ONORAB(E COURT O+ APPEA(S AN, "U(-A ROSAR-O BE,-ASANTOS& #espon/ents.

0-TUG& ".

Conce/e/l$ a hihl$& if not in/ee/ the 3ost li4el$& cont#o)e#sial p#o)ision int#o/uce/ b$ the +a3il$Co/e is A#ticle 56 7as a3en/e/ b$ E.O. No. 228 /ate/ 18 "ul$ 1!98:& ;hich /ecla#es

A#t. 56. A 3a##iae cont#acte/ b$ an$ pa#t$ ;ho& at the ti3e of the celeb#ation& ;asps$choloicall$ incapacitate/ to co3pl$ ;ith the essential 3a#ital obliations of 3a##iae& shallli4e;ise be )oi/ e)en if such incapacit$ beco3es 3anifest onl$ afte# its sole3ni<ation.

The p#esent petition fo# #e)ie; on ce#tio#a#i& at the instance of (eouel Santos 7=(eouel=:& b#ins intofo#e the abo)e p#o)ision ;hich is no; in)o4e/ b$ hi3. Un/aunte/ b$ the /ecisions of the cou#t a >uo 1an/ the Cou#t of Appeal& 2 (eouel pe#sists in beseechin its application in his atte3pt to ha)e his3a##iae ;ith he#ein p#i)ate #espon/ent& "ulia Rosa#io Be/iaSantos 7="ulia=:& /ecla#e/ a nullit$.

-t ;as in -loilo Cit$ ;he#e (eouel& ;ho then hel/ the #an4 of +i#st (ieutenant in the Philippine A#3$&fi#st 3et "ulia. The 3eetin late# p#o)e/ to be an e)entful /a$ fo# (eouel an/ "ulia. On 2 Septe3be#1!96& the t;o e?chane/ )o;s befo#e Municipal T#ial Cou#t "u/e Co#nelio G. (a<a#o of -loilo Cit$&follo;e/& sho#tl$ the#eafte#& b$ a chu#ch ;e//in. (eouel an/ "ulia li)e/ ;ith the latte#@s pa#ents at the". Be/ia Co3poun/& (a Pa<& -loilo Cit$. On 19 "ul$ 1!98& "ulia a)e bi#th to a bab$ bo$& an/ he ;asch#istene/ (eouel Santos& "#. The ecstas$& ho;e)e#& /i/ not last lon. -t ;as boun/ to happen& (eouela)e##e/& because of the f#e>uent inte#fe#ence b$ "ulia@s pa#ents into the $oun spouses fa3il$ affai#s.Occasionall$& the couple ;oul/ also sta#t a =>ua##el= o)e# a nu3be# of othe# thins& li4e ;hen an/;he#e the couple shoul/ sta#t li)in in/epen/entl$ f#o3 "ulia@s pa#ents o# ;hene)e# "ulia ;oul/e?p#ess #esent3ent on (eouel@s spen/in a fe; /a$s ;ith his o;n pa#ents.

On 19 Ma$ 1!99& "ulia finall$ left fo# the Unite/ Sates of A3e#ica to ;o#4 as a nu#se /espite (eouel@spleas to so /issua/e he#. Se)en 3onths afte# he# /epa#tu#e& o# on 1 "anua#$ 1!9!& "ulia calle/ up(eouel fo# the fi#st ti3e b$ lon /istance telephone. She p#o3ise/ to #etu#n ho3e upon the e?pi#ationof he# cont#act in "ul$ 1!9!. She ne)e# /i/. hen (eouel ot a chance to )isit the Unite/ States& ;he#ehe un/e#;ent a t#ainin p#o#a3 un/e# the auspices of the A#3e/ +o#ces of the Philippines f#o3 1Ap#il up to 2' Auust 1!!& he /espe#atel$ t#ie/ to locate& o# to so3eho; et in touch ;ith& "ulia butall his effo#ts ;e#e of no a)ail.

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


*a)in faile/ to et "ulia to so3eho; co3e ho3e& (eouel file/ ;ith the #eional t#ial Cou#t of Ne#osO#iental& B#anch 5& a co3plaint fo# =0oi/in of 3a##iae Un/e# A#ticle 56 of the +a3il$ Co/e=7/oc4ete/& Ci)il Case No. !91%:. Su33ons ;as se#)e/ b$ publication in a ne;spape# of ene#alci#culation in Ne#os O#iental.

On 51 Ma$ 1!!1& #espon/ent "ulia& in he# ans;e# 7th#ouh counsel:& oppose/ the co3plaint an/ /enie/

its alleations& clai3in& in 3ain& that it ;as the petitione# ;ho ha/& in fact& been i##esponsible an/inco3petent.

A possible collusion bet;een the pa#ties to obtain a /ec#ee of nullit$ of thei# 3a##iae ;as #ule/ out b$the Office of the P#o)incial P#osecuto# 7in its #epo#t to the cou#t:.

On 2' Octobe# 1!!1& afte# p#et#ial confe#ences ha/ #epeate/l$ been set& albeit unsuccessfull$& b$ thecou#t& "ulia ulti3atel$ file/ a 3anifestation& statin that she ;oul/ neithe# appea# no# sub3it e)i/ence.

On 6 No)e3be# 1!!1& the cou#t a >uo finall$ /is3isse/ the co3plaint fo# lac4 of 3e#it. 5

(eouel appeale/ to the Cou#t of Appeal. The latte# affi#3e/ the /ecision of the t#ial cou#t. %

The petition shoul/ be /enie/ not onl$ because of its nonco3pliance ;ith Ci#cula# 29!1& ;hich#e>ui#es a ce#tification of nonshoppin& but also fo# its lac4 of 3e#it.

(eouel a#ues that the failu#e of "ulia to #etu#n ho3e& o# at the )e#$ least to co33unicate ;ith hi3& fo#3o#e than fi)e $ea#s a#e ci#cu3stances that clea#l$ sho; he# bein ps$choloicall$ incapacitate/ toente# into 3a##ie/ life. -n his o;n ;o#/s& (eouel asse#ts

. . . 7T:he#e is no lea)e& the#e is no affection fo# 7hi3: because #espon/ent "ulia Rosa#io Be/iaSantosfaile/ all these $ea#s to co33unicate ;ith the petitione#. A ;ife ;ho /oes not ca#e to info#3 he#husban/ about he# ;he#eabouts fo# a pe#io/ of fi)e $ea#s& 3o#e o# less& is ps$choloicall$incapacitate/.

The fa3il$ Co/e /i/ not /efine the te#3 =ps$choloical incapacit$.= The /elibe#ations /u#in thesessions of the +a3il$ Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee& ;hich has /#afte/ the Co/e& can& ho;e)e#& p#o)i/ean insiht on the i3po#t of the p#o)ision.

A#t. 5'. The follo;in 3a##iaes shall be )oi/ f#o3 the beinnin

??? ??? ???

A#t. 56. . . .

78: Those 3a##iaes cont#acte/ b$ an$ pa#t$ ;ho& at the ti3e of the celeb#ation& ;as ;antin in thesufficient use of #eason o# u/3ent to un/e#stan/ the essential natu#e of 3a##iae o# ;asps$choloicall$ o# 3entall$ incapacitate/ to /ischa#e the essential 3a#ital obliations& e)en if suchlac4 of incapacit$ is 3a/e 3anifest afte# the celeb#ation.

On subpa#a#aph 78:& ;hich as lifte/ f#o3 the Canon (a;& "ustice 7"ose B.(.: Re$es sueste/ thatthe$ sa$ =;antin in sufficient use&= but "ustice 7E/ua#/o: Cauioa p#efe##e/ to sa$ =;antin in thesufficient use.= On the othe# han/& "ustice Re$es p#opose/ that the$ sa$ =;antin in sufficient #eason.=

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


"ustice Cauioa& ho;e)e#& pointe/ out that the i/ea is that one is not lac4in in u/3ent but that he islac4in in the e?e#cise of u/3ent. *e a//e/ that lac4 of u/3ent ;oul/ 3a4e the 3a##iae )oi/able."u/e 7Alicia Se3pio: ,i$ #e3a#4e/ that lac4 of u/3ent is 3o#e se#ious than insufficient use of u/3ent an/ $et the latte# ;oul/ 3a4e the 3a##iae null an/ )oi/ an/ the fo#3e# onl$ )oi/able."ustice Cauioa sueste/ that subpa#a#aph 78: be 3o/ifie/ to #ea/

=That cont#acte/ b$ an$ pa#t$ ;ho& at the ti3e of the celeb#ation& ;as ps$choloicall$ incapacitate/ to/ischa#e the essential 3a#ital obliations& e)en if such lac4 of incapacit$ is 3a/e 3anifest afte# theceleb#ation.=

"ustice Cauioa e?plaine/ that the ph#ase =;as ;antin in sufficient use of #eason of u/3ent toun/e#stan/ the essential natu#e of 3a##iae= #efe#s to /efects in the 3ental faculties )itiatin consent&;hich is not the i/ea in subpa#a#aph 78:& but lac4 of app#eciation of one@s 3a#ital obliations.

"u/e ,i$ #aise/ the >uestion Since =insanit$= is also a ps$choloical o# 3ental incapacit$& ;h$ is=insanit$= onl$ a #oun/ fo# annul3ent an/ not fo# /ecla#ation o# nullit$ -n #epl$& "ustice Cauioae?plaine/ that in insanit$& the#e is the appea#ance of consent& ;hich is the #eason ;h$ it is a #oun/ fo#)oi/able 3a##iaes& ;hile subpa#a#aph 78: /oes not #efe# to consent but to the )e#$ essence of 3a#italobliations.

P#of. 7A#aceli: Ba)ie#a sueste/ that& in subpa#a#aph 78:& the ;o#/ =3entall$= be /elete/& ;ith ;hich"ustice Cauioa concu##e/. "u/e ,i$& ho;e)e#& p#efe#s to #etain the ;o#/ =3entall$.=

"ustice Cauioa #e3a#4e/ that subpa#a#aph 78: #efe#s to ps$choloical i3potence. "ustice 7Rica#/o:Puno state/ that so3eti3es a pe#son 3a$ be ps$choloicall$ i3potent ;ith one but not ;ith anothe#."ustice 7(eono# -nes: (uciano sai/ that it is calle/ selecti)e i3potenc$.

,ean 7+o#tunato: Gupit state/ that the confusion lies in the fact that in inse#tin the Canon (a;annul3ent in the +a3il$ Co/e& the Co33ittee use/ a lanuae ;hich /esc#ibes a #oun/ fo# )oi/able3a##iaes un/e# the Ci)il Co/e. "ustice Cauioa a//e/ that in Canon (a;& the#e a#e )oi/able 3a##iaesun/e# the Canon (a;& the#e a#e no )oi/able 3a##iaes ,ean Gupit sai/ that this is p#ecisel$ the #eason;h$ the$ shoul/ 3a4e a /istinction.

"ustice Puno #e3a#4e/ that in Canon (a;& the /efects in 3a##iae cannot be cu#e/.

"ustice Re$es pointe/ out that the p#oble3 is h$ is =insanit$= a #oun/ fo# )oi/ ab initio 3a##iaes-n #epl$& "ustice Cauioa e?plaine/ that insanit$ is cu#able an/ the#e a#e luci/ inte#)als& ;hileps$choloical incapacit$ is not.

On anothe# point& "ustice Puno sueste/ that the ph#ase =e)en if such lac4 o# incapacit$ is 3a/e3anifest= be 3o/ifie/ to #ea/ =e)en if such lac4 o# incapacit$ beco3es 3anifest.=

"ustice Re$es #e3a#4e/ that in insanit$& at the ti3e of the 3a##iae& it is not appa#ent.

"ustice Cauioa state/ that the#e a#e t;o inte#p#etations of the ph#ase =ps$choloical o# 3entall$incapacitate/= D in the fi#st one& the#e is )itiation of consent because one /oes not 4no; all theconse>uences of the 3a##iaes& an/ if he ha/ 4no;n these co3pletel$& he 3iht not ha)e consente/ tothe 3a##iae.

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


??? ??? ???

P#of. Bautista state/ that he is in fa)o# of 3a4in ps$choloical incapacit$ a #oun/ fo# )oi/able3a##iaes since othe#;ise it ;ill encou#ae one ;ho #eall$ un/e#stoo/ the conse>uences of 3a##iae toclai3 that he /i/ not an/ to 3a4e e?cuses fo# in)ali/atin the 3a##iae b$ actin as if he /i/ notun/e#stan/ the obliations of 3a##iae. ,ean Gupit a//e/ that it is a loose ;a$ of p#o)i/in fo#

/i)o#ce.

??? ??? ???

"ustice Cauioa e?plaine/ that his point is that in the case of incapacit$ b$ #eason of /efects in the3ental faculties& ;hich is less than insanit$& the#e is a /efect in consent an/& the#efo#e& it is clea# that itshoul/ be a #oun/ fo# )oi/able 3a##iae because the#e is the appea#ance of consent an/ it is capable ofcon)ali/ation fo# the si3ple #eason that the#e a#e luci/ inte#)als an/ the#e a#e cases ;hen the insanit$ iscu#able. *e e3phasi<e/ that ps$choloical incapacit$ /oes not #efe# to 3ental faculties an/ has nothinto /o ;ith consent it #efe#s to obliations atten/ant to 3a##iae.

??? ??? ???

On ps$choloical incapacit$& P#of. 7+le#i/a Ruth P.: Ro3e#o in>ui#e/ if the$ /o not consi/e# it as ointo the )e#$ essence of consent. She as4e/ if the$ a#e #eall$ #e3o)in it f#o3 consent. -n #epl$& "usticeCauioa e?plaine/ that& ulti3atel$& consent in ene#al is effecte/ but he st#esse/ that his point is that itis not p#incipall$ a )itiation of consent since the#e is a )ali/ consent. *e obecte/ to the lu3pintoethe# of the )ali/it$ of the 3a##iae celeb#ation an/ the obliations atten/ant to 3a##iae& ;hich a#eco3pletel$ /iffe#ent f#o3 each othe#& because the$ #e>ui#e a /iffe#ent capacit$& ;hich is eihteen $ea#sof ae& fo# 3a##iae but in cont#act& it is /iffe#ent. "ustice Puno& ho;e)e#& felt that ps$choloicalincapacit$ is still a 4in/ of )ice of consent an/ that it shoul/ not be classifie/ as a )oi/able 3a##iae;hich is incapable of con)ali/ation it shoul/ be con)ali/ate/ but the#e shoul/ be no p#esc#iption. -nothe# ;o#/s& as lon as the /efect has not been cu#e/& the#e is al;a$s a #iht to annul the 3a##iae an/if the /efect has been #eall$ cu#e/& it shoul/ be a /efense in the action fo# annul3ent so that ;hen theaction fo# annul3ent is institute/& the issue can be #aise/ that actuall$& althouh one 3iht ha)e beenps$choloicall$ incapacitate/& at the ti3e the action is b#ouht& it is no lone# t#ue that he has noconcept of the conse>uence of 3a##iae.

P#of. 7Esteban: Bautista #aise/ the >uestion ill not cohabitation be a /efense -n #esponse& "usticePuno state/ that e)en the bea#in of chil/#en an/ cohabitation shoul/ not be a sin that ps$choloicalincapacit$ has been cu#e/.

P#of. Ro3e#o opine/ that ps$choloical incapacit$ is still insanit$ of a lesse# /e#ee. "ustice (ucianosueste/ that the$ in)ite a ps$chiat#ist& ;ho is the e?pe#t on this 3atte#. "ustice Cauioa& ho;e)e#&#eite#ate/ that ps$choloical incapacit$ is not a /efect in the 3in/ but in the un/e#stan/in of theconse>uences of 3a##iae& an/ the#efo#e& a ps$chiat#ist ;ill not be a help.

P#of. Bautista state/ that& in the sa3e 3anne# that the#e is a luci/ inte#)al in insanit$& the#e a#e also3o3enta#$ pe#io/s ;hen the#e is an un/e#stan/in of the conse>uences of 3a##iae. "ustice Re$es an/,ean Gupit #e3a#4e/ that the #oun/ of ps$choloical incapacit$ ;ill not appl$ if the 3a##iae ;ascont#acte/ at the ti3e ;hen the#e is un/e#stan/in of the conse>uences of 3a##iae. '

??? ??? ???

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


"u/e ,i$ p#opose/ that the$ inclu/e ph$sical incapacit$ to copulate a3on the #oun/s fo# )oi/3a##iaes. "ustice Re$es co33ente/ that in so3e instances the i3potence that in so3e instances thei3potence is onl$ te3po#a#$ an/ onl$ ;ith #espect to a pa#ticula# pe#son. "u/e ,i$ state/ that the$ canspecif$ that it is incu#able. "ustice Cauioa #e3a#4e/ that the te#3 =incu#able= has a /iffe#ent 3eaninin la; an/ in 3e/icine. "u/e ,i$ state/ that =ps$choloical incapacit$= can also be cu#e/. "ustice

Cauioa& ho;e)e#& pointe/ out that =ps$choloical incapacit$= is incu#able.

"ustice Puno obse#)e/ that un/e# the p#esent /#aft p#o)ision& it is enouh to sho; that at the ti3e of theceleb#ation of the 3a##iae& one ;as ps$choloicall$ incapacitate/ so that late# on if al#ea/$ he canco3pl$ ;ith the essential 3a#ital obliations& the 3a##iae is still )oi/ ab initio. "ustice Cauioae?plaine/ that since in /i)o#ce& the ps$choloical incapacit$ 3a$ occu# afte# the 3a##iae& in )oi/3a##iaes& it has to be at the ti3e of the celeb#ation of 3a##iae. *e& ho;e)e#& st#esse/ that the i/ea inthe p#o)ision is that at the ti3e of the celeb#ation of the 3a##iae& one is ps$choloicall$ incapacitate/to co3pl$ ;ith the essential 3a#ital obliations& ;hich incapacit$ continues an/ late# beco3es3anifest.

"ustice Puno an/ "u/e ,i$& ho;e)e#& pointe/ out that it is possible that afte# the 3a##iae& one@sps$choloical incapacit$ beco3e 3anifest but late# on he is cu#e/. "ustice Re$es an/ "ustice Cauioaopine/ that the #e3e/$ in this case is to allo; hi3 to #e3a##$. 6

??? ??? ???

"ustice Puno fo#3ulate/ the ne?t A#ticle as follo;s

A#t. 58. A 3a##iae cont#acte/ b$ an$ pa#t$ ;ho& at the ti3e of the celeb#ation& ;asps$choloicall$ incapacitate/& to co3pl$ ;ith the essential obliations of 3a##iae shall li4e;ise be)oi/ f#o3 the beinnin e)en if such incapacit$ beco3es 3anifest afte# its sole3ni<ation.

"ustice Cauioa sueste/ that =e)en if= be substitute/ ;ith =althouh.= On the othe# han/& P#of.Bautista p#opose/ that the clause =althouh such incapacit$ beco3es 3anifest afte# its sole3ni<ation=be /elete/ since it 3a$ encou#ae one to c#eate the 3anifestation of ps$choloical incapacit$. "usticeCauioa pointe/ out that& as in othe# p#o)isions& the$ cannot a#ue on the basis of abuse.

"u/e ,i$ sueste/ that the$ also inclu/e 3ental an/ ph$sical incapacities& ;hich a#e lesse# in /e#eethan ps$choloical incapacit$. "ustice Cauioa e?plaine/ that 3ental an/ ph$sical incapacities a#e )icesof consent ;hile ps$choloical incapacit$ is not a species of )ice o# consent.

,ean Gupit #ea/ ;hat Bishop C#u< sai/ on the 3atte# in the 3inutes of thei# +eb#ua#$ !& 1!9% 3eetin

=On the thi#/ #oun/& Bishop C#u< in/icate/ that the ph#ase =ps$choloical o# 3ental i3potence= is anin)ention of so3e chu#ch3en ;ho a#e 3o#alists but not canonists& that is ;h$ it is consi/e#e/ a ;ea4ph#ase. *e sai/ that the Co/e of Canon (a; ;oul/ #athe# e?p#ess it as =ps$choloical o# 3entalincapacit$ to /ischa#e . . .=

"ustice Cauioa #e3a#4e/ that the$ /elete/ the ;o#/ =3ental= p#ecisel$ to /istinuish it f#o3 )ice ofconsent. *e e?plaine/ that =ps$choloical incapacit$= #efe#s to lac4 of un/e#stan/in of the essentialobliations of 3a##iae.

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


"ustice Puno #e3in/e/ the 3e3be#s that& at the last 3eetin& the$ ha)e /eci/e/ not to o into theclassification of =ps$choloical incapacit$= because the#e ;as a lot of /ebate on it an/ that this isp#ecisel$ the #eason ;h$ the$ classifie/ it as a special case.

At this point& "ustice Puno& #e3a#4e/ that& since the#e ha)in been annul3ents of 3a##iaes a#isinf#o3 ps$choloical incapacit$& Ci)il (a; shoul/ not #econcile ;ith Canon (a; because it is a ne;

#oun/ e)en un/e# Canon (a;.

P#of. Ro3e#o #aise/ the >uestion ith this co33on p#o)ision in Ci)il (a; an/ in Canon (a;& a#ethe$ oin to ha)e a p#o)ision in the +a3il$ Co/e to the effect that 3a##iaes annulle/ o# /ecla#e/ )oi/b$ the chu#ch on the #oun/ of ps$choloical incapacit$ is auto3aticall$ annulle/ in Ci)il (a; Theothe# 3e3be#s #eplie/ neati)el$.

"ustice Puno an/ P#of. Ro3e#o in>ui#e/ if A#ticle 58 shoul/ be #et#oacti)e o# p#ospecti)e inapplication.

"ustice ,i$ opine/ that she ;as fo# its #et#oacti)it$ because it is thei# ans;e# to the p#oble3 of chu#channul3ents of 3a##iaes& ;hich a#e still )ali/ un/e# the Ci)il (a;. On the othe# han/& "ustice Re$esan/ "ustice Puno ;e#e conce#ne/ about the a)alanche of cases.

,ean Gupit sueste/ that the$ put the issue to a )ote& ;hich the Co33ittee app#o)e/.

The 3e3be#s )ote/ as follo;s

71: "ustice Re$es& "ustice Puno an/ P#of. Ro3e#o ;e#e fo# p#ospecti)it$.

72: "ustice Cauioa& "u/e ,i$& ,ean Gupit& P#of. Bautista an/ ,i#ecto# Eufe3io ;e#e fo##et#oacti)it$.

75: P#of. Ba)ie#a abstaine/.

"ustice Cauioa sueste/ that the$ put in the p#esc#ipti)e pe#io/ of ten $ea#s ;ithin ;hich the actionfo# /ecla#ation of nullit$ of the 3a##iae shoul/ be file/ in cou#t. The Co33ittee app#o)e/ thesuestion. 8

-t coul/ ;ell be that& in su3& the +a3il$ Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee in ulti3atel$ /eci/in to a/opt thep#o)ision ;ith less specificit$ than e?pecte/& has in fact& so /esine/ the la; as to allo; so3e#esilienc$ in its application. M3e. "ustice Alicia 0. Se3pio,i$& a 3e3be# of the Co/e Co33ittee& hasbeen >uote/ b$ M#. "ustice "osue N. Bellosillo in Salita )s. *on. Matolis 7G.R. No. 16%2!& 15 "une1!!%: thus 9

The Co33ittee /i/ not i)e an$ e?a3ples of ps$choloical incapacit$ fo# fea# that the i)in ofe?a3ples ;oul/ li3it the applicabilit$ of the p#o)ision un/e# the p#inciple of eus/e3 ene#is. Rathe#&the Co33ittee ;oul/ li4e the u/e to inte#p#et the p#o)ision on a casetocase basis& ui/e/ b$e?pe#ience& the fin/ins of e?pe#ts an/ #esea#che#s in ps$choloical /isciplines& an/ b$ /ecisions ofchu#ch t#ibunals ;hich& althouh not bin/in on the ci)il cou#ts& 3a$ be i)en pe#suasi)e effect sincethe p#o)ision ;as ta4en f#o3 Canon (a;.

A pa#t of the p#o)ision is si3ila# to Canon 1!' of the Ne; Co/e of Canon (a;& ! ;hich #ea/s

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


Canon 1!'. The$ a#e incapable of cont#actin 3a##iae

1. ;ho lac4 sufficient use of #eason

2. ;ho suffe# f#o3 a #a)e /efect of /isc#etion of u/3ent conce#nin essentila 3at#i3onial

#ihts an/ /uties& to be i)en an/ accepte/ 3utuall$

5. ;ho fo# causes of ps$choloical natu#e a#e unable to assu3e the essential obliations of3a##iae. 7E3phasis supplie/.:

Acco#/inl$& althouh neithe# /ecisi)e no# e)en pe#haps all that pe#suasi)e fo# ha)in no u#i/ical o#secula# effect& the u#isp#u/ence un/e# Canon (a; p#e)ailin at the ti3e of the co/e@s enact3ent&ne)e#theless& cannot be /is3isse/ as i3pe#tinent fo# its )alue as an ai/& at least& to the inte#p#etation o#const#uction of the co/al p#o)ision.

One autho#& (a/islas O#s$& S.".& in his t#eaties& 1 i)in an account on ho; the thi#/ pa#a#aph ofCanon 1!' has been f#a3e/& states

The histo#$ of the /#aftin of this canon /oes not lea)e an$ /oubt that the leislato# inten/e/& in/ee/& tob#oa/en the #ule. A st#ict an/ na##o; no#3 ;as p#opose/ fi#st

Those ;ho cannot assu3e the essential obliations of 3a##iae because of a #a)e ps$chose?ualano3al$ 7ob #a)e3 ano3alia3 ps$chose?uale3: a#e unable to cont#act 3a##iae 7cf. SC*F1!8'&canon 2!8& a ne; canon& no)us:

then a b#oa/e# one follo;e/

. . . because of a #a)e ps$choloical ano3al$ 7ob #a)e3 ano3alia3 ps$chica3: . . . 7cf. SC*F1!9&canon 1%!:

then the sa3e ;o#/in ;as #etaine/ in the te?t sub3itte/ to the pope 7cf. SC*F1!92& canon 1!'& 5:

finall$& a ne; )e#sion ;as p#o3ulate/

because of causes of a ps$choloical natu#e 7ob causas natu#ae ps$chiae:.

So the p#o#ess ;as f#o3 ps$chose?ual to ps$choloical ano3al$& then the te#3 ano3al$ ;asaltoethe# eli3inate/. it ;oul/ be& ho;e)e#& inco##ect to /#a; the conclusion that the cause of theincapacit$ nee/ not be so3e 4in/ of ps$choloical /iso#/e# afte# all& no#3al an/ health$ pe#son shoul/be able to assu3e the o#/ina#$ obliations of 3a##iae.

+#. O#s$ conce/es that the te#3 =ps$choloical incapacit$= /efies an$ p#ecise /efinition sinceps$choloical causes can be of an infinite )a#iet$.

-n a boo4& entitle/ =Canons an/ Co33enta#ies on Ma##iae&= ;#itten b$ -natius G#a3unt& "a)ie#*e#)a/a an/ (eRo$ auc4& the follo;in e?planation appea#s

This incapacit$ consists of the follo;in 7a: a t#ue inabilit$ to co33it oneself to the essentials of

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


3a##iae. So3e ps$chose?ual /iso#/e#s an/ othe# /iso#/e#s of pe#sonalit$ can be the ps$chic cause ofthis /efect& ;hich is he#e /esc#ibe/ in leal te#3s. This pa#ticula# t$pe of incapacit$ consists of a #ealinabilit$ to #en/e# ;hat is /ue b$ the cont#act. This coul/ be co3pa#e/ to the incapacit$ of a fa#3e# toente# a bin/in cont#act to /eli)e# the c#ops ;hich he cannot possibl$ #eap 7b: this inabilit$ to co33itoneself 3ust #efe# to the essential obliations of 3a##iae the conual act& the co33unit$ of life an/lo)e& the #en/e#in of 3utual help& the p#oc#eation an/ e/ucation of offsp#in 7c: the inabilit$ 3ust be

tanta3ount to a ps$choloical abno#3alit$. The 3e#e /ifficult$ of assu3in these obliations& ;hichcoul/ be o)e#co3e b$ no#3al effo#t& ob)iousl$ /oes not constitute incapacit$. The canon conte3platesa t#ue ps$choloical /iso#/e# ;hich incapacitates a pe#son f#o3 i)in ;hat is /ue 7cf. "ohn Paul --&A//#ess to R. Rota& +eb. '& 1!98:. *o;e)e#& if the 3a##iae is to be /ecla#e/ in)ali/ un/e# thisincapacit$& it 3ust be p#o)e/ not onl$ that the pe#son is afflicte/ b$ a ps$choloical /efect& but that the/efect /i/ in fact /ep#i)e the pe#son& at the 3o3ent of i)in consent& of the abilit$ to assu3e theessential /uties of 3a##iae an/ conse>uentl$ of the possibilit$ of bein boun/ b$ these /uties.

"ustice Se3pio,i$ 11 cites ;ith app#o)al the ;o#4 of ,#. Ge#a#/o 0eloso& a fo#3e# P#esi/in "u/e ofthe Met#opolitan Ma##iae T#ibunal of the Catholic A#ch/iocese of Manila 7B#anch 1:& ;ho opines thatps$choloical incapacit$ 3ust be cha#acte#i<e/ b$ 7a: #a)it$& 7b: u#i/ical antece/ence& an/ 7c:incu#abilit$. The incapacit$ 3ust be #a)e o# se#ious such that the pa#t$ ;oul/ be incapable of ca##$inout the o#/ina#$ /uties #e>ui#e/ in 3a##iae it 3ust be #oote/ in the histo#$ of the pa#t$ ante/atin the3a##iae& althouh the o)e#t 3anifestations 3a$ e3e#e onl$ afte# the 3a##iae an/ it 3ust beincu#able o#& e)en if it ;e#e othe#;ise& the cu#e ;oul/ be be$on/ the 3eans of the pa#t$ in)ol)e/.

-t shoul/ be ob)ious& loo4in at all the fo#eoin /is>uisitions& inclu/in& an/ 3ost i3po#tantl$& the/elibe#ations of the +a3il$ Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee itself& that the use of the ph#ase =ps$choloicalincapacit$= un/e# A#ticle 56 of the Co/e has not been 3eant to co3p#ehen/ all such possible cases ofps$choses as& li4e;ise 3entione/ b$ so3e ecclesiastical autho#ities& e?t#e3el$ lo; intellience&i33atu#it$& an/ li4e ci#cu3stances 7cite/ in +#. A#te3io Balu3a@s =0oi/ an/ 0oi/able Ma##iaes in the+a3il$ Co/e an/ thei# Pa#allels in Canon (a;&= >uotin f#o3 the ,ianostic Statistical Manual ofMental ,iso#/e# b$ the A3e#ican Ps$chiat#ic Association E/;a#/ *u/son@s =*an/boo4 -- fo#Ma##iae Nullit$ Cases=:. A#ticle 56 of the +a3il$ Co/e cannot be ta4en an/ const#ue/ in/epen/entl$of& but 3ust stan/ in conunction ;ith& e?istin p#ecepts in ou# la; on 3a##iae. Thus co##elate/&=ps$choloical incapacit$= shoul/ #efe# to no less than a 3ental 7not ph$sical: incapacit$ that causes apa#t$ to be t#ul$ inconiti)e of the basic 3a#ital co)enants that conco3itantl$ 3ust be assu3e/ an//ischa#e/ b$ the pa#ties to the 3a##iae ;hich& as so e?p#esse/ b$ A#ticle 69 of the +a3il$ Co/e&inclu/e thei# 3utual obliations to li)e toethe#& obse#)e lo)e& #espect an/ fi/elit$ an/ #en/e# help an/suppo#t. The#e is ha#/l$ an$ /oubt that the inten/3ent of the la; has been to confine the 3eanin of=ps$choloical incapacit$= to the 3ost se#ious cases of pe#sonalit$ /iso#/e#s clea#l$ /e3onst#ati)e ofan utte# intensiti)it$ o# inabilit$ to i)e 3eanin an/ sinificance to the 3a##iae. This pscholoiccon/ition 3ust e?ist at the ti3e the 3a##iae is celeb#ate/. The la; /oes not e)i/entl$ en)ision& uponthe othe# han/& an inabilit$ of the spouse to ha)e se?ual #elations ;ith the othe#. This conclusion isi3plicit un/e# A#ticle '% of the +a3il$ Co/e ;hich consi/e#s chil/#en concei)e/ p#io# to the u/icial/ecla#ation of nullit$ of the )oi/ 3a##iae to be =leiti3ate.=

The othe# fo#3s of ps$choses& if e?istin at the inception of 3a##iae& li4e the state of a pa#t$ bein ofunsoun/ 3in/ o# conceal3ent of /#u a//iction& habitual alcoholis3& ho3ose?ualit$ o# lesbianis3&3e#el$ #en/e#s the 3a##iae cont#act )oi/able pu#suant to A#ticle %6& +a3il$ Co/e. -f /#u a//iction&habitual alcholis3& lesbianis3 o# ho3ose?ualit$ shoul/ occu# onl$ /u#in the 3a##iae& the$ beco3e3e#e #oun/s fo# leal sepa#ation un/e# A#ticle '' of the +a3il$ Co/e. These p#o)isions of the Co/e&ho;e)e#& /o not necessa#il$ p#eclu/e the possibilit$ of these )a#ious ci#cu3stances bein the3sel)es&

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


/epen/in on the /e#ee an/ se)e#it$ of the /iso#/e#& in/icia of ps$choloical incapacit$.

Until fu#the# statuto#$ an/ u#isp#u/ential pa#a3ete#s a#e establishe/& e)e#$ ci#cu3stance that 3a$ ha)eso3e bea#in on the /e#ee& e?tent& an/ othe# con/itions of that incapacit$ 3ust& in e)e#$ case& beca#efull$ e?a3ine/ an/ e)aluate/ so that no p#ecipitate an/ in/isc#i3inate nullit$ is pe#e3pto#il$/ec#ee/. The ;ellconsi/e#e/ opinions of ps$chiat#ists& ps$choloists& an/ pe#sons ;ith e?pe#tise in

ps$choloical /isciplines 3iht be helpful o# e)en /esi#able.

Ma##iae is not an a/)entu#e but a lifeti3e co33it3ent. e shoul/ continue to be #e3in/e/ that innatein ou# societ$& then ensh#ine/ in ou# Ci)il Co/e& an/ e)en no; still in/elible in A#ticle 1 of the +a3il$Co/e& is that D

A#t. 1. Ma##iae is a special cont#act of pe#3anent union bet;een a 3an a ;o3an ente#e/ into inacco#/ance ;ith la; fo# the establish3ent of conual an/ fa3il$ life. -t is the foun/ation of the fa3il$an/ an in)iolable social institution ;hose natu#e& conse>uences& an/ inci/ents a#e o)e#ne/ b$ la; an/not subect to stipulation& e?cept that 3a##iae settle3ents 3a$ fi? the p#ope#t$ #elations /u#in the3a##iae ;ithin the li3its p#o)i/e/ b$ this Co/e. 7E3phasis supplie/.:

Ou# Constitution is no less e3phatic

Sec. 1. The State #econi<es the +ilipino fa3il$ as the foun/ation of the nation. Acco#/inl$& it shallst#enthen its soli/a#it$ an/ acti)el$ p#o3ote its total /e)elop3ent.

Sec. 2. Ma##iae& as an in)iolable social institution& is the foun/ation of the fa3il$ an/ shall bep#otecte/ b$ the State. 7A#ticle 0& 1!98 Constitution:.

The abo)e p#o)isions e?p#ess so ;ell an/ so /istinctl$ the basic nucleus of ou# la;s on 3a##iae an/the fa3il$& an/ the$ a#e /oubt the tenets ;e still hol/ on to.

The factual settins in the case at bench& in no 3easu#e at all& can co3e close to the stan/a#/s #e>ui#e/to /ec#ee a nullit$ of 3a##iae. Un/eniabl$ an/ un/e#stan/abl$& (eouel stan/s a#ie)e/& e)en/espe#ate& in his p#esent situation. Re#ettabl$& neithe# la; no# societ$ itself can al;a$s p#o)i/e all thespecific ans;e#s to e)e#$ in/i)i/ual p#oble3.

*ERE+ORE& the petition is ,EN-E,.

SO OR,ERE,.

Na#)asa& C.".& Bi/in& Reala/o& ,a)i/e& "#.& Ro3e#o& Bellosillo& Melo& Huiason& Puno Iapunan an/Men/o<a& "".& concu#.

+eliciano& ".& is on lea)e.

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


Sepa#ate Opinions

PA,-((A& ".& /issentin

-t is /ifficult to /issent f#o3 a ;ell;#itten an/ stu/ie/ opinion as M#. "ustice 0itu@s ponencia. But&afte# an e?ten/e/ #eflection on the facts of this case& - cannot see 3$ ;a$ clea# into hol/in& as the3ao#it$ /o& that the#e is no #oun/ fo# the /ecla#ation of nullit$ of the 3a##iae bet;een petitione# an/p#i)ate #espon/ent.

To 3$ 3in/& it is clea# that p#i)ate #espon/ent has been sho;n to be ps$choloicall$ incapacitate/ toco3pl$ ;ith at least one essential 3a#ital obliation& i.e. that of li)in an/ cohabitin ;ith he# husban/&he#ein petitione#. On the othe# han/& it has not been sho;n that petitione# /oes not /ese#)e to li)e an/cohabit ;ith his ;ife& he#ein p#i)ate #espon/ent.

The#e appea#s to be no /isa#ee3ent that the te#3 =ps$choloical incapacit$= /efies p#ecision in/efinition. But& as use/ in A#ticle 56 of the +a3il$ Co/e as a #oun/ fo# the /ecla#ation of nullit$ of a3a##iae& the intent of the f#a3e#s of the Co/e is e)i/entl$ to e?pan/ an/ libe#ali<e the #oun/s fo#nullif$in a 3a##iae& as ;ell pointe/ out b$ Ma/a3 "ustice +le#i/a Ruth P. Ro3e#o in he# sepa#ateopinion in this case.

hile it is t#ue that the boa#/ te#3 =ps$choloical incapacit$= can open the /oo#s to abuse b$ couples;ho 3a$ ;ish to ha)e an eas$ ;a$ out of thei# 3a##iae& the#e a#e& ho;e)e#& enouh safeua#/saainst this continenc$& a3on ;hich& is the inte#)ention b$ the State& th#ouh the public p#osecuto#&to ua#/ aainst collusion bet;een the pa#ties an/Fo# fab#ication of e)i/ence.

-n thei# case at bench& it has been abun/antl$ establishe/ that p#i)ate #espon/ent "ulia Rosa#io Be/iaSantos e?hibits specific beha)io# ;hich& to 3$ 3in/& sho;s that she is ps$choloicall$ incapacitate/ tofulfill he# essential 3a#ital obliations& to ;#it

a. -t too4 he# se)en 78: 3onths afte# she left fo# the Unite/ States to call up he# husban/.

b. "ulia p#o3ise/ to #etu#n ho3e afte# he# ob cont#act e?pi#e/ in "ul$ 1!9!& but she ne)e# /i/ an/neithe# is the#e an$ sho;in that she info#3e/ he# husban/ 7he#ein petitione#: of he# ;he#eabouts in theU.S.A.

c. hen petitione# ;ent to the Unite/ States on a 3ission fo# the Philippine A#3$& he e?e#te/effo#ts to =touch base= ;ith "ulia the#e ;e#e no si3ila# effo#ts on the pa#t of "ulia the#e ;e#e nosi3ila# effo#ts on the pa#t of "ulia to /o the sa3e.

/. hen petitione# file/ this suit& 3o#e than fi)e 7': $ea#s ha/ elapse/& ;ithout "ulia in/icatin he#plans to #eoin the petitione# o# he# ;he#eabouts.

e. hen petitione# file/ this case in the t#ial cou#t& "ulia& in he# ans;e#& clai3e/ that it is thefo#3e# ;ho has been i##esponsible an/ inco3petent.

f. ,u#in the t#ial& "ulia ;ai)e/ he# #iht to appea# an/ sub3it e)i/ence.

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


A spouse@s obliation to li)e an/ cohabit ;ith hisFhe# pa#tne# in 3a##iae is a basic #oun/ #ule in3a##iae& unless the#e a#e o)e#po;e#in co3pellin #easons such as& fo# instance& an incu#ablecontaious /isease on the pa#t of a spouse o# c#uelt$ of one pa#tne#& bo#/e#in on insanit$. The#e 3a$also be instances ;hen& fo# econo3ic an/ p#actical #easons& husban/ an/ ;ife ha)e to li)e sepa#atel$&but the 3a#ital bon/ bet;een the spouses al;a$s #e3ains. Mutual lo)e an/ #espect fo# each othe#;oul/& in such cases& co3pel the absent spouse to at least ha)e #eula# cont#acts ;ith the othe# to

info#3 the latte# of hisFhe# con/ition an/ ;he#eabouts.

-n the p#esent case& it is appa#ent that p#i)ate #espon/ent "ulia Rosa#io Be/iaSantos has no intention ofcohabitin ;ith petitione#& he# husban/& o# 3aintainin contact ;ith hi3. -n fact& he# acts elo>uentl$sho; that she /oes not ;ant he# husban/ to 4no; of he# ;he#eabouts an/ neithe# has she an$ intentionof li)in an/ cohabitin ;ith hi3.

To 3e the#e appea#s to be& on the pa#t of p#i)ate #espon/ent& an un3ista4eable in/ication ofps$choloical incapacit$ to co3pl$ ;ith he# essential 3a#ital obliations& althouh these in/ications;e#e 3a/e 3anifest afte# the celeb#ation of the 3a##iae.

-t ;oul/ be a #eat inustice& - belie)e& to petitione# fo# this Cou#t to i)e a 3uch too #est#icti)einte#p#etation of the la; an/ co3pel the petitione# to continue to be 3a##ie/ to a ;ife ;ho fo# pu#posesof fulfillin he# 3a#ital /uties has& fo# all p#actical pu#poses& cease/ to e?ist.

Besi/es& the#e a#e public polic$ consi/e#ations in)ol)e/ in the #ulin the Cou#t 3a4es to/a$. -s it not& ineffect /i#ectl$ o# in/i#ectl$& facilitatin the t#ansfo#3ation of petitione# into a =habitual t#$ste#= o# onefo#ce/ to 3aintain illicit #elations ;ith anothe# ;o3an o# ;o3en ;ith e3e#in p#oble3s ofilleiti3ate chil/#en& si3pl$ because he is /enie/ b$ p#i)ate #espon/ent& his ;ife& the co3panionshipan/ conual lo)e ;hich he has souht f#o3 he# an/ to ;hich he is leall$ entitle/

- /o not o as fa# as to suest that A#t. 56 of the +a3il$ Co/e is a sanction fo# absolute /i)o#ce but -sub3it that ;e shoul/ not const#ict it to non#econition of its e)i/ent pu#pose an/ thus /en$ to oneli4e petitione#& an oppo#tunit$ to tu#n a ne; leaf in his life b$ /ecla#in his 3a##iae a nullit$ b$ #easonof his ;ife@s ps$choloical incapacit$ to pe#fo#3 an essential 3a#ital obliation.

- the#efo#e )ote to GRANT the petition an/ to ,EC(ARE the 3a##iae bet;een petitione# (eouelSantos an/ p#i)ate #espon/ent "ulia Rosa#io Be/iaSantos 0O-, on the basis of A#ticle 56 of the+a3il$ Co/e.

ROMERO& ".& concu##in

- a#ee un/e# the ci#cu3stances of the case& petitione# is not entitle/ to ha)e his 3a##iae /ecla#e/ anullit$ on the #oun/ of ps$choloical incapacit$ of p#i)ate #espon/ent.

*o;e)e#& as a 3e3be# of both the +a3il$ (a; Re)ision Co33ittee of the -nte#ate/ Ba# of thePhilippines an/ the Ci)il Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee of the UP (a; Cente#& - ;ish to a// so3eobse#)ations. The lette# 1 /ate/ Ap#il 1'& 1!9' of then "u/e Alicia 0. Se3pio,i$ ;#itten in behalf ofthe +a3il$ (a; an/ Ci)il Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee to then Asse3bl$;o3an Me#ce/es CouancoTeo/o#o t#ace/ the bac4#oun/ of the inclusion of the p#esent A#ticle 56 in the +a3il$ Co/e.

,u#in its ea#l$ 3eetins& the +a3il$ (a; Co33ittee ha/ thouht of inclu/in a chapte# on absolute/i)o#ce in the /#aft of a ne; +a3il$ Co/e 7Boo4 - of the Ci)il Co/e: that it ha/ been tas4e/ b$ the -BP

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


an/ the UP (a; Cente# to p#epa#e. -n fact& so3e 3e3be#s of the Co33ittee ;e#e in fa)o# of a nofault/i)o#ce bet;een the spouses afte# a nu3be# of $ea#s of sepa#ation& leal o# /efacto. "ustice ".B.(.Re$es ;as then #e>ueste/ to p#epa#e a p#oposal fo# an action fo# /issolution of 3a##iae an/ the effectsthe#eof base/ on t;o #oun/s 7a: fi)e continuous $ea#s of sepa#ation bet;een the spouses& ;ith o#;ithout a u/icial /ec#ee of leal sepa#ation& an/ 7b: ;hene)e# a 3a##ie/ pe#son ;oul/ ha)e obtaine/ a/ec#ee of absolute /i)o#ce in anothe# count#$. Actuall$& such a p#oposal is one fo# absolute /i)o#ce but

calle/ b$ anothe# na3e. (ate#& e)en the Ci)il Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee too4 ti3e to /iscuss thep#oposal of "ustice Re$es on this 3atte#.

Subse>uentl$& ho;e)e#& ;hen the Ci)il Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee an/ +a3il$ (a; Co33ittee sta#te/hol/in oint 3eetins on the p#epa#ation of the /#aft of the Ne; +a3il$ Co/e& the$ a#ee/ an/fo#3ulate/ the /efinition of 3a##iae as D

=a special cont#act of pe#3anent pa#tne#ship bet;een a 3an an/ a ;o3an ente#e/ into in acco#/ance;ith la; fo# the establish3ent of conual an/ fa3il$ life. -t is an in)iolable social institution ;hosenatu#e& conse>uences& an/ inci/ents a#e o)e#ne/ b$ la; an/ not subect to stipulation& e?cept that3a##iae settle3ents 3a$ fi? the p#ope#t$ #elations /u#in the 3a##iae ;ithin the li3its p#o)i/e/ b$la;.=

ith the abo)e /efinition& an/ consi/e#in the Ch#istian t#a/itional concept of 3a##iae of the +ilipinopeople as a pe#3anent& in)iolable& in/issoluble social institution upon ;hich the fa3il$ an/ societ$ a#efoun/e/& an/ also #eali<in the st#on opposition that an$ p#o)ision on absolute /i)o#ce ;oul/encounte# f#o3 the Catholic Chu#ch an/ the Catholic secto# of ou# citi<en#$ to ;ho3 the #eat 3ao#it$of ou# people belon& the t;o Co33ittees in thei# oint 3eetins /i/ not pu#sue the i/ea of absolute/i)o#ce an/ instea/ opte/ fo# an action fo# u/icial /ecla#ation of in)ali/it$ of 3a##iae base/ on#oun/s a)ailable in the Canon (a;. -t ;as thouht that such an action ;oul/ not onl$ be an acceptablealte#nati)e to /i)o#ce but ;oul/ also sol)e the nain p#oble3 of chu#ch annul3ents of 3a##iaes on#oun/s not #econi<e/ b$ the ci)il la; of the State. "ustice Re$es ;as thus #e>ueste/ to aain p#epa#ea /#aft of p#o)isions on such action fo# celeb#ation of in)ali/it$ of 3a##iae. Still late#& to a)oi/ theo)e#lappin of p#o)isions on )oi/ 3a##iaes as foun/ in the p#esent Ci)il Co/e an/ those p#opose/ b$"ustice Re$es on u/icial /ecla#ation of in)ali/it$ of 3a##iae on #oun/s si3ila# to the Canon (a;& thet;o Co33ittees no; ;o#4in as a "oint Co33ittee in the p#epa#ation of a Ne; +a3il$ Co/e /eci/e/to consoli/ate the p#esent p#o)isions on )oi/ 3a##iaes ;ith the p#oposals of "ustice Re$es. The #esult;as the inclusion of an a//itional 4in/ of )oi/ 3a##iae in the enu3e#ation of )oi/ 3a##iaes in thep#esent Ci)il Co/e& to ;it

=78: Those 3a##iaes cont#acte/ b$ an$ pa#t$ ;ho& at the ti3e of the celeb#ation& ;as ;antin in thesufficient use of #eason o# u/3ent to un/e#stan/ the essential natu#e of 3a##iae o# ;asps$choloicall$ o# 3entall$ incapacitate/ to /ischa#e the essential 3a#ital obliations& e)en if suchlac4 of incapacit$ is 3a/e 3anifest afte# the celeb#ation.=

as ;ell as the follo;in i3ple3entin p#o)isions

=A#t. 52. The absolute nullit$ of a 3a##iae 3a$ be in)o4e/ o# plea/e/ onl$ on the basis of a final u/3ent /ecla#in the 3a##iae )oi/& ;ithout p#eu/ice to the p#o)ision of A#ticle 5%.=

=A#t. 55. The action o# /efense fo# the /ecla#ation of the absolute nullit$ of a 3a##iae shall notp#esc#ibe.=

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


??? ??? ???

-t is belie)e/ that 3an$ hopelessl$ b#o4en 3a##iaes in ou# count#$ to/a$ 3a$ al#ea/$ /issol)e/ o#annulle/ on the #oun/s p#opose/ b$ the "oint Co33ittee on /ecla#ation of nullit$ as ;ell asannul3ent of 3a##iaes& thus #en/e#in an absolute /i)o#ce la; unnecessa#$. -n fact& /u#in aconfe#ence ;ith +athe# Ge#al/ *eal$ of the Ateneo Uni)e#sit$ as ;ell as anothe# 3eetin ;ith

A#chbishop Osca# C#u< of the A#ch/iocese of Pa3pana& the "oint Co33ittee ;as info#3e/ that since0atican --& the Catholic Chu#ch has been /ecla#in 3a##iaes null an/ )oi/ on the #oun/ of =lac4 of/ue /isc#etion= fo# causes that& in othe# u#is/ictions& ;oul/ be clea# #oun/s fo# /i)o#ce& li4e teenaeo# p#e3atu#e 3a##iaes 3a##iae to a 3an ;ho& because of so3e pe#sonalit$ /iso#/e# o# /istu#bance&cannot suppo#t a fa3il$ the foolish o# #i/iculous choice of a spouse b$ an othe#;ise pe#fectl$ no#3alpe#son 3a##iae to a ;o3an ;ho #efuses to cohabit ;ith he# husban/ o# ;ho #efuses to ha)e chil/#en.Bishop C#u< also info#3e/ the Co33ittee that the$ ha)e foun/ out in t#ibunal ;o#4 that a lot of3achis3o a3on husban/s a#e 3anifestations of thei# sociopathic pe#sonalit$ ano3al$& li4e inflictinph$sical )iolence upon thei# ;i)es& constitutional in/olence o# la<iness& /#u /epen/ence o# a//iction&an/ ps$choloical ano3al$. . . . 7E3phasis supplie/:

Clea#l$& b$ inco#po#atin ;hat is no; A#ticle 56 into the +a3il$ Co/e& the Re)ision Co33ittee#efe##e/ to abo)e inten/e/ to a// anothe# #oun/ to those al#ea/$ liste/ in the Ci)il Co/e as #oun/sfo# nullif$in a 3a##iae& thus e?pan/in o# libe#ali<in the sa3e. -nhe#ent in the inclusion of thep#o)ision on ps$choloical incapacit$ ;as the un/e#stan/in that e)e#$ petition fo# /ecla#ation ofnullit$ base/ on it shoul/ be t#eate/ on a casetocase basis hence& the absence of a /efinition an/ anenu3e#ation of ;hat constitutes ps$choloical incapacit$. Mo#eo)e#& the Co33ittee fea#e/ that thei)in of e?a3ples ;oul/ li3it the applicabilit$ of the p#o)ision un/e# the p#inciple of eus/e3ene#is. But the la; #e>ui#es that the sa3e be e?istin at the ti3e of 3a##iae althouh it be 3anifeste/late#.

A/3itte/l$& the p#o)ision on ps$choloical incapacit$& ust li4e an$ othe# p#o)ision of la;& is open toabuse. To p#e)ent this& =the cou#t shall ta4e o#/e# the p#osecutin atto#ne$ o# fiscal assine/ to it toappea# on behalf of the State to ta4e steps to p#e)ent collusion bet;een the pa#ties an/ to ta4e ca#e thate)i/ence is not fab#icate/ o# supp#esse/.= 2 Mo#eo)e#& the u/e& in inte#p#etin the p#o)ision on acasetocase basis& 3ust be ui/e/ b$ =e?pe#ience& the fin/ins of e?pe#ts an/ #esea#che#s inps$choloical /isciplines& an/ b$ /ecisions of chu#ch t#ibunals ;hich& althouh not bin/in on the ci)ilcou#ts& 3a$ be i)en pe#suasi)e effect since the p#o)isions ;as ta4en f#o3 Canon (a;.= 5

The constitutional an/ statuto#$ p#o)isions on the fa3il$ % ;ill #e3ain the lo/esta# ;hich ou# societ$;ill hope to achie)e ulti3atel$. The#efo#e& the inclusion of A#ticle 56 is not to be ta4en as anaban/on3ent of the i/eal ;hich ;e all che#ish. -f at all& it is a #econition of the #ealit$ that so3e3a##iaes& b$ #eason of the incapacit$ of one of the cont#actin pa#ties& fall sho#t of this i/eal thus& thepa#ties a#e const#aine/ to fin/ a ;a$ of puttin an en/ to thei# union th#ouh so3e leall$accepte/3eans.

An$ c#iticis3 /i#ecte/ at the ;a$ that u/es ha)e inte#p#ete/ the p#o)ision since its enact3ent as to#en/e# it easie# fo# unhappil$3a##ie/ couples to sepa#ate is a//#esse/& not to the ;is/o3 of thela;3a4e#s but to the 3anne# b$ ;hich so3e 3e3be#s of the Bench ha)e i3ple3ente/ the p#o)ision.These a#e not inte#chaneable& each bein sepa#ate an/ /istinct f#o3 the othe#.

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


Sepa#ate Opinions

PA,-((A& ".& /issentin

-t is /ifficult to /issent f#o3 a ;ell;#itten an/ stu/ie/ opinion as M#. "ustice 0itu@s ponencia. But&afte# an e?ten/e/ #eflection on the facts of this case& - cannot see 3$ ;a$ clea# into hol/in& as the

3ao#it$ /o& that the#e is no #oun/ fo# the /ecla#ation of nullit$ of the 3a##iae bet;een petitione# an/p#i)ate #espon/ent.

To 3$ 3in/& it is clea# that p#i)ate #espon/ent has been sho;n to be ps$choloicall$ incapacitate/ toco3pl$ ;ith at least one essential 3a#ital obliation& i.e. that of li)in an/ cohabitin ;ith he# husban/&he#ein petitione#. On the othe# han/& it has not been sho;n that petitione# /oes not /ese#)e to li)e an/cohabit ;ith his ;ife& he#ein p#i)ate #espon/ent.

The#e appea#s to be no /isa#ee3ent that the te#3 =ps$choloical incapacit$= /efies p#ecision in/efinition. But& as use/ in A#ticle 56 of the +a3il$ Co/e as a #oun/ fo# the /ecla#ation of nullit$ of a3a##iae& the intent of the f#a3e#s of the Co/e is e)i/entl$ to e?pan/ an/ libe#ali<e the #oun/s fo#nullif$in a 3a##iae& as ;ell pointe/ out b$ Ma/a3 "ustice +le#i/a Ruth P. Ro3e#o in he# sepa#ateopinion in this case.

hile it is t#ue that the boa#/ te#3 =ps$choloical incapacit$= can open the /oo#s to abuse b$ couples;ho 3a$ ;ish to ha)e an eas$ ;a$ out of thei# 3a##iae& the#e a#e& ho;e)e#& enouh safeua#/saainst this continenc$& a3on ;hich& is the inte#)ention b$ the State& th#ouh the public p#osecuto#&to ua#/ aainst collusion bet;een the pa#ties an/Fo# fab#ication of e)i/ence.

-n thei# case at bench& it has been abun/antl$ establishe/ that p#i)ate #espon/ent "ulia Rosa#io Be/iaSantos e?hibits specific beha)io# ;hich& to 3$ 3in/& sho;s that she is ps$choloicall$ incapacitate/ tofulfill he# essential 3a#ital obliations& to ;#it

a. -t too4 he# se)en 78: 3onths afte# she left fo# the Unite/ States to call up he# husban/.

b. "ulia p#o3ise/ to #etu#n ho3e afte# he# ob cont#act e?pi#e/ in "ul$ 1!9!& but she ne)e# /i/ an/neithe# is the#e an$ sho;in that she info#3e/ he# husban/ 7he#ein petitione#: of he# ;he#eabouts in theU.S.A.

c. hen petitione# ;ent to the Unite/ States on a 3ission fo# the Philippine A#3$& he e?e#te/effo#ts to =touch base= ;ith "ulia the#e ;e#e no si3ila# effo#ts on the pa#t of "ulia the#e ;e#e nosi3ila# effo#ts on the pa#t of "ulia to /o the sa3e.

/. hen petitione# file/ this suit& 3o#e than fi)e 7': $ea#s ha/ elapse/& ;ithout "ulia in/icatin he#plans to #eoin the petitione# o# he# ;he#eabouts.

e. hen petitione# file/ this case in the t#ial cou#t& "ulia& in he# ans;e#& clai3e/ that it is thefo#3e# ;ho has been i##esponsible an/ inco3petent.

f. ,u#in the t#ial& "ulia ;ai)e/ he# #iht to appea# an/ sub3it e)i/ence.

A spouse@s obliation to li)e an/ cohabit ;ith hisFhe# pa#tne# in 3a##iae is a basic #oun/ #ule in3a##iae& unless the#e a#e o)e#po;e#in co3pellin #easons such as& fo# instance& an incu#able

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


contaious /isease on the pa#t of a spouse o# c#uelt$ of one pa#tne#& bo#/e#in on insanit$. The#e 3a$also be instances ;hen& fo# econo3ic an/ p#actical #easons& husban/ an/ ;ife ha)e to li)e sepa#atel$&but the 3a#ital bon/ bet;een the spouses al;a$s #e3ains. Mutual lo)e an/ #espect fo# each othe#;oul/& in such cases& co3pel the absent spouse to at least ha)e #eula# cont#acts ;ith the othe# toinfo#3 the latte# of hisFhe# con/ition an/ ;he#eabouts.

-n the p#esent case& it is appa#ent that p#i)ate #espon/ent "ulia Rosa#io Be/iaSantos has no intention ofcohabitin ;ith petitione#& he# husban/& o# 3aintainin contact ;ith hi3. -n fact& he# acts elo>uentl$sho; that she /oes not ;ant he# husban/ to 4no; of he# ;he#eabouts an/ neithe# has she an$ intentionof li)in an/ cohabitin ;ith hi3.

To 3e the#e appea#s to be& on the pa#t of p#i)ate #espon/ent& an un3ista4eable in/ication ofps$choloical incapacit$ to co3pl$ ;ith he# essential 3a#ital obliations& althouh these in/ications;e#e 3a/e 3anifest afte# the celeb#ation of the 3a##iae.

-t ;oul/ be a #eat inustice& - belie)e& to petitione# fo# this Cou#t to i)e a 3uch too #est#icti)einte#p#etation of the la; an/ co3pel the petitione# to continue to be 3a##ie/ to a ;ife ;ho fo# pu#posesof fulfillin he# 3a#ital /uties has& fo# all p#actical pu#poses& cease/ to e?ist.

Besi/es& the#e a#e public polic$ consi/e#ations in)ol)e/ in the #ulin the Cou#t 3a4es to/a$. -s it not& ineffect /i#ectl$ o# in/i#ectl$& facilitatin the t#ansfo#3ation of petitione# into a =habitual t#$ste#= o# onefo#ce/ to 3aintain illicit #elations ;ith anothe# ;o3an o# ;o3en ;ith e3e#in p#oble3s ofilleiti3ate chil/#en& si3pl$ because he is /enie/ b$ p#i)ate #espon/ent& his ;ife& the co3panionshipan/ conual lo)e ;hich he has souht f#o3 he# an/ to ;hich he is leall$ entitle/

- /o not o as fa# as to suest that A#t. 56 of the +a3il$ Co/e is a sanction fo# absolute /i)o#ce but -sub3it that ;e shoul/ not const#ict it to non#econition of its e)i/ent pu#pose an/ thus /en$ to oneli4e petitione#& an oppo#tunit$ to tu#n a ne; leaf in his life b$ /ecla#in his 3a##iae a nullit$ b$ #easonof his ;ife@s ps$choloical incapacit$ to pe#fo#3 an essential 3a#ital obliation.

- the#efo#e )ote to GRANT the petition an/ to ,EC(ARE the 3a##iae bet;een petitione# (eouelSantos an/ p#i)ate #espon/ent "ulia Rosa#io Be/iaSantos 0O-, on the basis of A#ticle 56 of the+a3il$ Co/e.


- a#ee un/e# the ci#cu3stances of the case& petitione# is not entitle/ to ha)e his 3a##iae /ecla#e/ anullit$ on the #oun/ of ps$choloical incapacit$ of p#i)ate #espon/ent.

*o;e)e#& as a 3e3be# of both the +a3il$ (a; Re)ision Co33ittee of the -nte#ate/ Ba# of thePhilippines an/ the Ci)il Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee of the UP (a; Cente#& - ;ish to a// so3eobse#)ations. The lette# 1 /ate/ Ap#il 1'& 1!9' of then "u/e Alicia 0. Se3pio,i$ ;#itten in behalf ofthe +a3il$ (a; an/ Ci)il Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee to then Asse3bl$;o3an Me#ce/es CouancoTeo/o#o t#ace/ the bac4#oun/ of the inclusion of the p#esent A#ticle 56 in the +a3il$ Co/e.

,u#in its ea#l$ 3eetins& the +a3il$ (a; Co33ittee ha/ thouht of inclu/in a chapte# on absolute/i)o#ce in the /#aft of a ne; +a3il$ Co/e 7Boo4 - of the Ci)il Co/e: that it ha/ been tas4e/ b$ the -BPan/ the UP (a; Cente# to p#epa#e. -n fact& so3e 3e3be#s of the Co33ittee ;e#e in fa)o# of a nofault/i)o#ce bet;een the spouses afte# a nu3be# of $ea#s of sepa#ation& leal o# /efacto. "ustice ".B.(.

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


Re$es ;as then #e>ueste/ to p#epa#e a p#oposal fo# an action fo# /issolution of 3a##iae an/ the effectsthe#eof base/ on t;o #oun/s 7a: fi)e continuous $ea#s of sepa#ation bet;een the spouses& ;ith o#;ithout a u/icial /ec#ee of leal sepa#ation& an/ 7b: ;hene)e# a 3a##ie/ pe#son ;oul/ ha)e obtaine/ a/ec#ee of absolute /i)o#ce in anothe# count#$. Actuall$& such a p#oposal is one fo# absolute /i)o#ce butcalle/ b$ anothe# na3e. (ate#& e)en the Ci)il Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee too4 ti3e to /iscuss thep#oposal of "ustice Re$es on this 3atte#.

Subse>uentl$& ho;e)e#& ;hen the Ci)il Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee an/ +a3il$ (a; Co33ittee sta#te/hol/in oint 3eetins on the p#epa#ation of the /#aft of the Ne; +a3il$ Co/e& the$ a#ee/ an/fo#3ulate/ the /efinition of 3a##iae as D

=a special cont#act of pe#3anent pa#tne#ship bet;een a 3an an/ a ;o3an ente#e/ into in acco#/ance;ith la; fo# the establish3ent of conual an/ fa3il$ life. -t is an in)iolable social institution ;hosenatu#e& conse>uences& an/ inci/ents a#e o)e#ne/ b$ la; an/ not subect to stipulation& e?cept that3a##iae settle3ents 3a$ fi? the p#ope#t$ #elations /u#in the 3a##iae ;ithin the li3its p#o)i/e/ b$la;.=

ith the abo)e /efinition& an/ consi/e#in the Ch#istian t#a/itional concept of 3a##iae of the +ilipinopeople as a pe#3anent& in)iolable& in/issoluble social institution upon ;hich the fa3il$ an/ societ$ a#efoun/e/& an/ also #eali<in the st#on opposition that an$ p#o)ision on absolute /i)o#ce ;oul/encounte# f#o3 the Catholic Chu#ch an/ the Catholic secto# of ou# citi<en#$ to ;ho3 the #eat 3ao#it$of ou# people belon& the t;o Co33ittees in thei# oint 3eetins /i/ not pu#sue the i/ea of absolute/i)o#ce an/ instea/ opte/ fo# an action fo# u/icial /ecla#ation of in)ali/it$ of 3a##iae base/ on#oun/s a)ailable in the Canon (a;. -t ;as thouht that such an action ;oul/ not onl$ be an acceptablealte#nati)e to /i)o#ce but ;oul/ also sol)e the nain p#oble3 of chu#ch annul3ents of 3a##iaes on#oun/s not #econi<e/ b$ the ci)il la; of the State. "ustice Re$es ;as thus #e>ueste/ to aain p#epa#ea /#aft of p#o)isions on such action fo# celeb#ation of in)ali/it$ of 3a##iae. Still late#& to a)oi/ theo)e#lappin of p#o)isions on )oi/ 3a##iaes as foun/ in the p#esent Ci)il Co/e an/ those p#opose/ b$"ustice Re$es on u/icial /ecla#ation of in)ali/it$ of 3a##iae on #oun/s si3ila# to the Canon (a;& thet;o Co33ittees no; ;o#4in as a "oint Co33ittee in the p#epa#ation of a Ne; +a3il$ Co/e /eci/e/to consoli/ate the p#esent p#o)isions on )oi/ 3a##iaes ;ith the p#oposals of "ustice Re$es. The #esult;as the inclusion of an a//itional 4in/ of )oi/ 3a##iae in the enu3e#ation of )oi/ 3a##iaes in thep#esent Ci)il Co/e& to ;it

=78: Those 3a##iaes cont#acte/ b$ an$ pa#t$ ;ho& at the ti3e of the celeb#ation& ;as ;antin in thesufficient use of #eason o# u/3ent to un/e#stan/ the essential natu#e of 3a##iae o# ;asps$choloicall$ o# 3entall$ incapacitate/ to /ischa#e the essential 3a#ital obliations& e)en if suchlac4 of incapacit$ is 3a/e 3anifest afte# the celeb#ation.=

as ;ell as the follo;in i3ple3entin p#o)isions

=A#t. 52. The absolute nullit$ of a 3a##iae 3a$ be in)o4e/ o# plea/e/ onl$ on the basis of a final u/3ent /ecla#in the 3a##iae )oi/& ;ithout p#eu/ice to the p#o)ision of A#ticle 5%.=

=A#t. 55. The action o# /efense fo# the /ecla#ation of the absolute nullit$ of a 3a##iae shall notp#esc#ibe.=

??? ??? ???

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


-t is belie)e/ that 3an$ hopelessl$ b#o4en 3a##iaes in ou# count#$ to/a$ 3a$ al#ea/$ /issol)e/ o#annulle/ on the #oun/s p#opose/ b$ the "oint Co33ittee on /ecla#ation of nullit$ as ;ell asannul3ent of 3a##iaes& thus #en/e#in an absolute /i)o#ce la; unnecessa#$. -n fact& /u#in aconfe#ence ;ith +athe# Ge#al/ *eal$ of the Ateneo Uni)e#sit$ as ;ell as anothe# 3eetin ;ithA#chbishop Osca# C#u< of the A#ch/iocese of Pa3pana& the "oint Co33ittee ;as info#3e/ that since0atican --& the Catholic Chu#ch has been /ecla#in 3a##iaes null an/ )oi/ on the #oun/ of =lac4 of

/ue /isc#etion= fo# causes that& in othe# u#is/ictions& ;oul/ be clea# #oun/s fo# /i)o#ce& li4e teenaeo# p#e3atu#e 3a##iaes 3a##iae to a 3an ;ho& because of so3e pe#sonalit$ /iso#/e# o# /istu#bance&cannot suppo#t a fa3il$ the foolish o# #i/iculous choice of a spouse b$ an othe#;ise pe#fectl$ no#3alpe#son 3a##iae to a ;o3an ;ho #efuses to cohabit ;ith he# husban/ o# ;ho #efuses to ha)e chil/#en.Bishop C#u< also info#3e/ the Co33ittee that the$ ha)e foun/ out in t#ibunal ;o#4 that a lot of3achis3o a3on husban/s a#e 3anifestations of thei# sociopathic pe#sonalit$ ano3al$& li4e inflictinph$sical )iolence upon thei# ;i)es& constitutional in/olence o# la<iness& /#u /epen/ence o# a//iction&an/ ps$choloical ano3al$. . . . 7E3phasis supplie/:

Clea#l$& b$ inco#po#atin ;hat is no; A#ticle 56 into the +a3il$ Co/e& the Re)ision Co33ittee#efe##e/ to abo)e inten/e/ to a// anothe# #oun/ to those al#ea/$ liste/ in the Ci)il Co/e as #oun/sfo# nullif$in a 3a##iae& thus e?pan/in o# libe#ali<in the sa3e. -nhe#ent in the inclusion of thep#o)ision on ps$choloical incapacit$ ;as the un/e#stan/in that e)e#$ petition fo# /ecla#ation ofnullit$ base/ on it shoul/ be t#eate/ on a casetocase basis hence& the absence of a /efinition an/ anenu3e#ation of ;hat constitutes ps$choloical incapacit$. Mo#eo)e#& the Co33ittee fea#e/ that thei)in of e?a3ples ;oul/ li3it the applicabilit$ of the p#o)ision un/e# the p#inciple of eus/e3ene#is. But the la; #e>ui#es that the sa3e be e?istin at the ti3e of 3a##iae althouh it be 3anifeste/late#.

A/3itte/l$& the p#o)ision on ps$choloical incapacit$& ust li4e an$ othe# p#o)ision of la;& is open toabuse. To p#e)ent this& =the cou#t shall ta4e o#/e# the p#osecutin atto#ne$ o# fiscal assine/ to it toappea# on behalf of the State to ta4e steps to p#e)ent collusion bet;een the pa#ties an/ to ta4e ca#e thate)i/ence is not fab#icate/ o# supp#esse/.= 2 Mo#eo)e#& the u/e& in inte#p#etin the p#o)ision on acasetocase basis& 3ust be ui/e/ b$ =e?pe#ience& the fin/ins of e?pe#ts an/ #esea#che#s inps$choloical /isciplines& an/ b$ /ecisions of chu#ch t#ibunals ;hich& althouh not bin/in on the ci)ilcou#ts& 3a$ be i)en pe#suasi)e effect since the p#o)isions ;as ta4en f#o3 Canon (a;.= 5

The constitutional an/ statuto#$ p#o)isions on the fa3il$ % ;ill #e3ain the lo/esta# ;hich ou# societ$;ill hope to achie)e ulti3atel$. The#efo#e& the inclusion of A#ticle 56 is not to be ta4en as anaban/on3ent of the i/eal ;hich ;e all che#ish. -f at all& it is a #econition of the #ealit$ that so3e3a##iaes& b$ #eason of the incapacit$ of one of the cont#actin pa#ties& fall sho#t of this i/eal thus& thepa#ties a#e const#aine/ to fin/ a ;a$ of puttin an en/ to thei# union th#ouh so3e leall$accepte/3eans.

An$ c#iticis3 /i#ecte/ at the ;a$ that u/es ha)e inte#p#ete/ the p#o)ision since its enact3ent as to#en/e# it easie# fo# unhappil$3a##ie/ couples to sepa#ate is a//#esse/& not to the ;is/o3 of thela;3a4e#s but to the 3anne# b$ ;hich so3e 3e3be#s of the Bench ha)e i3ple3ente/ the p#o)ision.These a#e not inte#chaneable& each bein sepa#ate an/ /istinct f#o3 the othe#.

+ootnotes

1 Pe# "u/e En#i>ue Ga#o)illo.

7/23/2019 Santos vs. CA (G.R. No. 112019)


2 Penne/ b$ "ustice "ainal Rasul& concu##e/ in b$ "ustice Pe/#o Ra3i#e< an/ Ra3on Mabutas& "#.

5 Rollo& 58%2.

% Rollo& 1519.

' ,elibe#ations of the +a3il$ Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee& "ul$ 26& 1!96.

6 ,elibe#ations of the +a3il$ Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee& Auust 2& 1!96.

8 ,elibe#ations of the +a3il$ Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee& Auust !& 1!96.

9 -n he# =*an/boo4 on the +a3il$ Co/e.=

! Ma##iae in Canon (a;& ,ela;a#e Michael Gla<ie#& -nc.& 1!96& 12!15.

C 1!' Sunt incapaces 3at#i3onii cont#ahen/i

1. >ui sufficiente #ationis usu ca#ent

2. >ui labo#ant #a)i /efectu /isc#etionis iu/icii ci#ca iu#a et official 3at#i3onialia essentialia3utuo t#a/en/a et acceptan/a

5. >ui ob causas natu#ae ps$chicae obliationes 3at#i3onii essentiales assu3e#e non )alent.

1 -bi/.& 151152.

11 *an/boo4 on the +a3il$ Co/e& +i#st E/ition& 1!99.


1 #itten pu#suant to the #e>uest of Asse3bl$;o3an Me#ce/es CouancoTeo/o#o /u#in theMa#ch 25& 1!9' oint 3eetin of the +a3il$ (a; an/ Ci)il Co/e Re)ision Co33ittee at the UP (a;Cente# fo# co33ents on P.B. 51%! 7Pacifica/o# Bill: on ,i)o#ce& P.B. No. 1!96 7Monfo#t an/ CollantesBill: on Reconition of Chu#ch Annul3ents of Ma##iaes& P.B. No. 25%8 7Sito$ Bill: on A//itionalG#oun/s fo# Annul3ent of Ma##iae an/ (eal Sepa#ation an/ P.B. 15' 7Iala; Bill: on E>ual Rihtsof +ilipino o3en ;hich ;e#e pen/in befo#e he# SubCo33ittee.

2 +AM-(J CO,E& A#t. %9.

5 ".A. ). SEMP-O,-J& *AN,BOOI O+ T*E +AM-(J CO,E O+ T*E P*-(-PP-NES& 5871!99:.

% As >uote/ in the 3ao#it$ opinion.

santos vs. ca (g.r. no. 112019)

Documents