summary of case digest

7/25/2019 Summary of Case Digest

1/20

1. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. vs. NLRC 272 SCRA 596

IssuePT&T fled a petition or reconsideration regarding the case o a dismissed

employee which was decide by the NLRC in avour o the plainti stating that the

reason or termination was because o dishonesty !dealcation" not due to the policy o

the company that married women are not allowed to be employed

RulingPrevious decision o the NLRC was upheld# $tating that termination due to

contracting to marriage o a emale employee is illegal# That the new reason that was

given does not %ustiy the termination o the employee#

2. S!ar Paper Corp. vs. Si"#ol $%7 SCRA 22% &

'a(!s )o!h *ere e"plo+ed #+ !he (o"pan+ *hen !he+ *ere s!ill single, !he+

onl+ "e! ea(h during !he (ourse o- !heir e"plo+"en!

Issue was the termination o the employees who married their cowor'er valid( )ased

upon the policy o the business est# regarding nepotism

RulingThe $C ruled that such policies i cannot be proven reasonably or be %ustifed

then such policies are considered unlawul and cannot be e*ercised

. /un(an vs. 0lao $% SCRA $ &


2/20

Issue case or reconsideration regarding a decision o the nlrc regarding a

complaint+dismissal+transer o a employee o gla*o ater getting married to an employee

o a competitor o the latters company

Ruling the petition was denied The ,anagement Prerogative o gla*o was reasonable%ustifed and air# The company policy did not prohibit marriage but to protect its right

marriage o their employee to a competitors employees was not allowed# This did not

violate any law#

$. ulue!a vs. Cour! o- Appeals 25 SCRA 699 & 3ovi( Ca!a#ona

ISS4-hether or not the papers and other materials obtained rom orcible entrusionand rom unlawul means are admissible as evidence in court regarding marital separationand dis.ualifcation rom medical practice#Rulingevidence ac.uired thru illegal means are not admissible in court# /ven i theperson who too' is married to the person who owns it# ,arriage does not %ustiy suchaction# That court permission is still re.uired and only the court may order it#

5. Silverio vs. Repu#li( o- !he Philippines 57 SCRA 7 &

ISS4 -hether or not an alien who married a flipina then who fled a divorce and was

granted would be accepted here in the phil#


3/20

R4LIN0 0es the divorce granted by a oreign country can be honoured in the phil#

Provided it must go thru the proper procedure#

Section 12 Rule 341 o the Rules o Court

This $ection re.uires proo either by

!3" o5cial publications or

!1" copies attested by the o5cer having legal custody o the documents# 6

the copies o o5cial records are not 'ept in the Philippines these must be

!a" accompanied by a certifcate issued by the proper diplomatic or

consular o5cer in the Philippine oreign service stationed in the oreign

country in which the record is 'ept and

!b" authenticated by the seal o his o5ce#

6. Repu#li( o- !he Philippines vs. Cagandahan 565 SCRA 72 &


4/20

ISS4 whether or not the petition od 7$8 be granted regarding the decidion o the RTC

tyo grant ther petiotion o a person who has an interse* disorder to change her gender

rom emale to male her name rom 9ennier to %e#

R4LIN0 N7# the petiotn o ther 7$8 was denied# :lthough his argument that thepetioner;s re.uest does all within the law o the C6


5/20

%. Repu#li( o- !he Philippines vs. r#e(ido III $72 SCRA 11$ &

'a(!s8 Le-! !o !he s!a!es *i!h !heir son

Issue 1. 8iven a valid marriage between two =ilipino citi>ens where one party is

later naturali>ed as a oreign citi>en and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating

him or her to remarry can the =ilipino spouse li'ewise remarry under Philippine law(

B/LD

The court ruled that ta'ing into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule o

reason :rticle 1@ Par#1 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who at the

time o the celebration o the marriage were =ilipino citi>ens but later on one o them

becomes naturali>ed as a oreign citi>en and obtains a divorce decree# The =ilipino spouse

should li'ewise be allowed to remarry as i the other party were a oreigner at the time o

the solemni>ation o the marriage#

Bence the court;s unanimous decision in holding :rticle 1@ Par 1 be interpreted asallowing a =ilipino citi>en who has been divorced by a spouse who had ac.uired aciti>enship and remarried also to remarry under Philippine law#

9. ui!a vs. Cour! o- Appeals :: SCRA $:6 &

6ssueD!3" -hether or not )landina;s marriage to :rturo void ab initio#!1" -hether or not =e # Euita be declared the primary benefciary as surviving

spouse o :rturo#


6/20

BeldD

No# The marriage o )landina and :rturo is not void# The citi>enship o =e # Euita at the

time o their divorce is relevant to this case# The divorce is valid here since she was

already an alien at the time she obtained divorce and such is valid in their country;s

national law#

Thus =e # Euita is no longer recogni>ed as a wie o :rturo# $he cannot be theprimary benefciary or will be recogni>ed as surviving spouse o :rturo#

I- !here is a (on!rovers+ #e-ore !he (our! as !o *ho are !he la*-ul heirs o-

!he de(eased person or as !o !he dis!ri#u!ive shares !o *hi(h ea(h personis en!i!led under !he la*, !

Al!hough a divor(e de(ree *as gran!ed, a! !ha! !i"e !he person *ho ;led

!he divor(e is s!ill a 'ilipino !hen in phil la* !he 1s!"arriage is s!ill #inding

unless a annul"en! (ase is ;le #+ ei!her par!ies. r in !his (ase !he S0

-ailed !o prove !he -oreign (i!ienship and !he divor(e de(ree no- !he *i-e

!here-ore she *as (onsidered s!ill a ;l

1:. ?he!her or no! )landina@s "arriage !o Ar!uro void a# ini!io.

=2> ?he!her or no! 'e /. ui!a #e de(lared !he pri"ar+ #ene;(iar+

as

surviving spouse o- Ar!uro.


7/20

eld

No. The "arriage o- )landina and Ar!uro is no! void. The (i!ienship o- 'e

/. ui!a a! !he !i"e o- !heir divor(e is relevan! !o !his (ase. The divor(e is

valid here sin(e she *as alread+ an alien a! !he !i"e she o#!ained divor(e,

and su(h is valid in !heir (oun!r+@s na!ional la*.

Thus, 'e /. ui!a is no longer re(ognied as a *i-e o- Ar!uro. She (anno!#e !he pri"ar+ #ene;(iar+ or *ill #e re(ognied as surviving spouse o-

Ar!uro.

,arriage by 1 :liens who got divorced are covered by the law o their

respective country including the law the govern properties even i outside theie

country# Thereore they can not use the local law o the place where the property is

situated

11. Pilapil vs. I#a+ So"era 17$ SCRA 65 &

'a(!s A 'ilipina "arried a ger"an, !hen !he ger"an a(Buires a divor(e in

his (oun!r+, !hen ;led a (ase agains! his e*i-e

6$$F/D-hether or not the private respondent;s adultery charges against thepetitioner is

still valid given the act that both had been divorced prior to the flingo charges#

B/LDThe law provides that in prosecutions or adultery and concubinage theperson who can

legally fle the complaint should only be the oended spouse# Theact that privaterespondent obtained a valid divorce in his country in 3G?4 isadmitted# :ccording to :rticle3H o the Civil Code with relation to the status o =ilipino citi>ens both here and abroadsince the legal separation o the petitionerand respondent has been fnali>ed through thecourts in 8ermany and the RTC in,anila the marriage o the couple were already fnishedthus giving no merit to thecharges the respondent fled against the petitioner# Privaterespondent being nolonger married to petitioner holds no legal merit to commence theadultery case asthe oended spouse at the time he fled suit in 3G?@# The temporaryrestrainingorder issued in this case was made permanent


8/20

7nce a marriage is divorce+annulled the innocent spouse can not fle a case agains

the oending spouse# The states that Ithe oended spouise may only fle a case i the

marriage is still valid

12. Repu#li( o- !he Philippines vs. /a+o! 55: SCRA $5 &

'ACTS

3ose and 'elisa /a+o! *ere "arried a! !he Pasa+ Ci!+ all on Nove"#er 2$,

19%6. In lieu o- a "arriage li(ense, !he+ ee(u!ed a s*orn aDdavi! !ha! !he+

had lived !oge!her -or a! leas! 5+ears. n Augus! 199:, 3ose (on!ra(!ed

"arriage *i!h a (er!ain Ru;na Pas(ual. The+ *ere #o!h e"plo+ees o- !he

Na!ional S!a!is!i(s and Coordina!ing )oard. 'elisa !hen ;led on 3une 199 an

a(!ion -or #iga"+ agains! 3ose and an ad"inis!ra!ive (o"plain! *i!h !he D(e

o- !he "#uds"an. n !he o!her hand, 3ose ;led a (o"plain! on 3ul+ 199 -or

annul"en! andEor de(lara!ion o- nulli!+ o- "arriage *here he (on!ended !ha! his

"arriage *i!h 'elisa *as a sha" and his (onsen! *as se(ured !hrough -raud.

ISS4 ?he!her or no! 3ose@s "arriage *i!h 'elisa is valid (onsidering !ha! !he+

ee(u!ed a s*orn aDdavi! in lieu o- !he "arriage li(ense reBuire"en!.

L/

CA indu#i!a#l+ es!a#lished !ha! 3ose and 'elisa have no! lived !oge!her -or ;ve

+ears a! !he !i"e !he+ ee(u!ed !heir s*orn aDdavi! and (on!ra(!ed "arriage.

3ose and 'elisa s!ar!ed living !oge!her onl+ in 3une 19%6, or #arel+ ;ve "on!hs

#e-ore !he (ele#ra!ion o- !heir "arriage on Nove"#er 19%6. 'indings o- -a(!s o-

!he Cour! o- Appeals are #inding in !he Supre"e Cour!.

The sole"nia!ion o- a "arriage *i!hou! prior li(ense is a (lear viola!ion o- !he

la* and invalida!es a "arriage. 'ur!her"ore, F!he -alsi!+ o- !he allega!ion in !he

s*orn aDdavi! rela!ing !o !he period o- 3ose and 'elisa@s (oha#i!a!ion, *hi(h

*ould have Buali;ed !heir "arriage as an e(ep!ion !o !he reBuire"en! -or a

"arriage li(ense, (anno! #e a "ere irregulari!+, -or i! re-ers !o a Buin!essen!ial

-a(! !ha! !he la* pre(isel+ reBuired !o #e deposed and a!!es!ed !o #+ !he par!ies

under oa!hG. en(e, 3ose and 'elisa@s "arriage is void a# ini!io. The (our! also

ruled !ha! an a(!ion -or nulli!+ o- "arriage is i"pres(rip!i#le. The righ! !o

i"pugn "arriage does no! pres(ri#e and "a+ #e raised an+ !i"e.


9/20

1. /e Cas!ro vs. Assido /e Cas!ro 5$5 SCRA 162 &

'ACTS !he+ "e! on 1991, a! 199$ go! a "ar. li( #u! go! epired, !he+

-aHed a aDdavi! o- (oha#i!a!ion so !he+ (an ge! "arried, a-!er !he

(ele#ra!ion !he+ did no! (oha#i!a!e

ISS4 -hether or not their marriage is valid#

L/The $C holds that the trial court had %urisdiction to determine the validity o

the marriage between petitioner and respondent# The validity o a void marriage

may be collaterally attac'ed#

Fnder the =amily Code the absence o any o the essential or ormal re.uisites shall

render the marriage void ab initio, whereas a deect in any o the essential

re.uisites shall render the marriage voidable# 6n the instant case it is clear rom

the evidence presented that petitioner and respondent did not have a marriage

license when they contracted their marriage# 6nstead they presented an a5davit

stating that they had been living together or more than fve years# Bowever

respondent hersel in eect admitted the alsity o the a5davit when she was as'ed

during crosse*amination# The alsity o the a5davit cannot be considered as a

mere irregularity in the ormal re.uisites o marriage# The law dispenses with themarriage license re.uirement or a man and a woman who have lived together and

e*clusively with each other as husband and wie or a continuous and unbro'en

period o at least fve years beore the marriage# The aim o this provision is to

avoid e*posing the parties to humiliation shame and embarrassment concomitant

with the scandalous cohabitation o persons outside a valid marriage due to the

publication o every applicant;s name or a marriage license# 6n the instant case

there was no Iscandalous cohabitationJ to protectA in act there was no

cohabitation at all# The alse a5davit which petitioner and respondent e*ecuted so

they could push through with the marriage has no value whatsoeverA it is a mere

scrap o paper# They were not e*empt rom the marriage license re.uirement# Their

ailure to obtain and present a marriage license renders their marriage void ab

initio.

nl+ !hru a proper annul"en! (ase a "arriage "a+ #e dee" annulled


10/20

1$. San!os vs. Cour! o- Appeals 0R No. 112:19, 3anuar+ $, 1995 &

'ACTS

Leouel San!os, a 'irs! Lieu!enan! in !he Philippine Ar"+, "e! 3ulia in Iloilo.

The !*o go! "arried in 19%6 #e-ore a "uni(ipal !rial (our! -ollo*ed shor!l+!herea-!er, #+ a (hur(h *edding. The (ouple lived *i!h 3ulia@s paren!s a!

!he 3. )edia Co"pound. 3ulia gave #ir!h !o a #a#+ #o+ in 19%7 and *as

na"ed as Leouel San!os 3r. ((asionall+, !he (ouple *ill Buarrel over a

nu"#er o- !hings aside -ro" !he in!er-eren(e o- 3ulia@s paren!s in!o !heir

-a"il+ aairs.

3ulia le-! in 19%% !o *orH in 4S as a nurse despi!e Leouel@s pleas !o

dissuade her. Seven "on!hs a-!er her depar!ure, she (alled her hus#and

and pro"ised !o re!urn ho"e upon !he epira!ion o- her (on!ra(! in 3ul+19%9 #u! she never did. Leouel go! a (han(e !o visi! 4S *here he

under*en! a !raining progra" under A'P, he despera!el+ !ried !o lo(a!e or

so"eho* ge! in !ou(h *i!h 3ulia #u! all his eor!s *ere o- no avail.

Leouel ;led a (o"plain! !o have !heir "arriage de(lared void under Ar!i(le

6 o- !he 'a"il+ Code. e argued !ha! -ailure o- 3ulia !o re!urn ho"e or !o

(o""uni(a!e *i!h hi" -or "ore !han 5 +ears are (ir(u"s!an(es !ha! sho*

her #eing ps+(hologi(all+ in(apa(i!a!ed !o en!er in!o "arried li-e.

ISS4 ?he!her !heir "arriage (an #e (onsidered void under Ar!i(le 6 o-

!he 'a"il+ Code.

L/

The in!end"en! o- !he la* has #een !o (on;ne !he "eaning o-

ps+(hologi(al in(apa(i!+ !o !he "os! serious (ases o- personal disorders

(learl+ de"ons!ra!ive o- an u!!er insensi!ivi!+ or ina#ili!+ !o give "eaningand signi;(an(e !o !he "arriage. This (ondi!ion "us! eis! a! !he !i"e !he

"arriage is (ele#ra!ed.

4ndenia#l+ and unders!anda#l+, Leouel s!ands aggrieved, even despera!e,

in his presen! si!ua!ion. Regre!!a#l+, nei!her la* nor so(ie!+ i!sel- (an

al*a+s provide all !he spe(i;( ans*ers !o ever+ individual pro#le".

?here-ore, his pe!i!ion *as denied.


11/20

15. Chi Jing Tsoi vs. Cour! o- Appeals 7% SCRA 57 &

=:CT$D

Chi ,ing Tsoi and 8ina Lao Tsoi was married in 3G??# :ter the celebration o their

wedding they proceed to the house o deendant;s mother# There was no se*ual

intercourse between them during their frst night and same thing happened until their

ourth night# 6n an eort to have their honeymoon in a private place they went to )aguio

but 8ina;s relatives went with them# :gain there was no se*ual intercourse since the

deendant avoided by ta'ing a long wal' during siesta or sleeping on a roc'ing chair at the

living room# $ince ,ay 3G?? until ,arch 3G?G they slept together in the same bed but no

attempt o se*ual intercourse between them# )ecause o this they submitted themselves

or medical e*amination to a urologist in Chinese 8eneral Bospital in 3G?G# The result o

the physical e*amination o 8ina was disclosed while that o the husband was 'ept

confdential even the medicine prescribed# There were allegations that the reason why Ch

,ing Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here in the country# 8ina does

not want to reconcile with Chi ,ing Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the

ground o psychological incapacity# 7n the other hand the latter does not want to have

their marriage annulled because he loves her very much he has no deect on his part and

is physically and psychologically capable and since their relationship is still young they

can still overcome their dierences# Chi ,ing Tsoi submitted himsel to another physical

e*amination and the result was there is not evidence o impotency and he is capable o

erection#

6$$F/D -hether Chi ,ing Tsoi;s reusal to have se*ual intercourse with his wie

constitutes psychological incapacity#

B/LD

The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly

indicative o a serious personality disorder which to the mind o the $upreme Court clearly

demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and signifcance tot the

marriage within the meaning o :rticle 4@ o the =amily Code#

6 a spouse although physically capable but simply reuses to perorm his or her essential

marital obligations and the reusal is senseless and constant Catholic marriage tribunals

attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn reusal# =urthermore one o

the essential marital obligations under the =amily Code is to procreate children thus constant


12/20

nonulfllment o this obligation will fnally destroy the integrity and wholeness o the

marriage#

16. Repu#li( o- !he Philippines vs. vs. a"ano $2% SCRA 75 &

'ACTS

Lolita EuinteroBamano fled a complaint in 3GG@ or declaration o nullity o her marriagewith Toshio Bamano a 9apanese national on the ground o psychological incapacity# $he and

Toshio started a commonlaw relationship in 9apan and lived in the Philippines or a month#Thereater Toshio went bac' to 9apan and stayed there or hal o 3G?K# Lolita then gavebirth on November 3@ 3G?K#

6n 3G?? Lolita and Toshio got married in ,TC)acoor Cavite# :ter a month o their marriage

Toshio returned to 9apan and promised to return by Christmas to celebrate the holidays withhis amily# Toshio sent money or two months and ater that he stopped giving fnancialsupport# $he wrote him several times but never respondent# 6n 3GG3 she learned rom herriend that Toshio visited the country but did not bother to see her nor their child#

Toshio was no longer residing at his given address thus summons issued to him remainedunserved# Conse.uently in 3GG@ Lolita fled an e* parte motion or leave to eect service osummons by publication# The motion was granted and the summons accompanied by a copyo the petition was published in a newspaper o general circulation giving Toshio 3H days tofle his answer# Toshio fled to respond ater the lapse o @ days rom publication thus Lolitafled a motion to reer the case to the prosecutor or investigation#

ISS4 -hether Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to perorm his marital obligation#

L/

The Court is mindul o the 3G?K Constitution to protect and strengthen the amily as basicautonomous social institution and marriage as the oundation o the amily# Thus any doubtshould be resolved in avor o the validity o the marriage#

Toshio;s act o abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged norproven to be due to some 'ind o psychological illness# :lthough as rule actual medicale*aminations are not needed it would have greatly helped Lolita had she presented evidencethat medically or clinically identifed Toshio;s illness# This could have been done through ane*pert witness# 6t is essential that a person show incapability o doing marital obligation dueto some psychological not physical illness# Bence Toshio was not considered aspsychologically incapacitated#

17. )ier vs. )ier 5$7 SCRA 12 &


13/20

=:CT$D Petitioner Renne /nre.ue )ier married ,a# Lourdes )ier on9uly 1@ 3GG1 at F$T

$antissimo Rosario Parish Church# Theireunion went on well until three years had passed and

,a#Lourdes has changed# $he became alcoholic chain smo'erand always staying out with her

riends and neglects her dutyas a wie to her husband and fnally on :pril 3

3GGKrespondent suddenly let or the Fnited $tates# Petitioner hasnot heard rom her ever

since# 7n :pril 3 3GG? petitionerinstituted in the Regional Trial Court !RTC" o Eue>on

City)ranch ?G a petition or the declaration o nullity o marriageon the ground that

respondent was psychologicallyincapacitated to ulfll her essential marital obligations

topetitioner# )ut the 75ce o the $olicitor 8eneral !7$8" fled acertifcation and maniested

its disavor towards declaring themarriage null and void# 6t argued that no persuasive

evidencewas presented warranting the grant o the petition speciallysince petitioner ailed to

comply with the guidelines laid downin Republic v# C: and ,olinaM2 !,olina"# 6n

,olinapsychological incapacity is elucidated as ollowsD !a" gravity!b" %uridical antecedence

and !c" incurability#

6$$F/D 6s the negligence o ,a# Lourdes )ier to perorm herobligation as wie is a

psychological incapacity(

RFL6N8D N7 psychological incapacity must be confned only to themost serious cases o

personality disorders clearlydemonstrative o an utter insensitivity or inability to givemeaning

and signifcance to the marriage# This psychologicalcondition must e*ist at the time the

marriage is celebrated#=urthermore there is absolutely no showing that her deectswere

already present at the inception o the marriage or thatthey are incurable# :pparently the wie

lost the emotionalaection or her husband thus it was her purpose to neglecther duties as a

wie# Thus the court /N6/ the petition tonulliy the marriage#

1%. Repu#li( o- !he Philippines vs. Ca#an!ug)aguio 0R No. 171:$2, 3une :,

2::% &


14/20

:CT$D Petition or review on the declaration o the nullity o marriage between

Lynette Cabantug)aguio and ,artini ico )aguio y

:ugust 31 3GGK Lynette and ,

artini were married ater being pen pals since 3GGH y

6nitially the couple stayed with LynetteOs parents#

,artini only stayed with his wie duringwee'ends and on wee'days he was at his

parentOs house# Lynette soon discovered that

,artini was a mamaOs boy y

Fpon the insistence o ,artiniOs mother his allotment was divided e.ually between

her andLynette

9anuary 3GGG No inormation about ,artini# Lynette also stopped receiving her

share o the allotment and upon in.uiry with ,artiniOs employer she ound out that

he was in:labang,untinlupa

7ctober 31 1 Lynette iled a complaint or the declaration o the nullity o

marriage onthe basis o ,artiniOs psychological incapacity to comply with the

essential marital dutiesand obligations as stated in :rt# @?K o the =amily Code

$ummons were served upon ,artini to which he did not fle any response#

No collusion was also established#

7ctober 32 3GGG Lynette learned that

,artini declared in his employment records that hewas $6N8L/ and named his

mother as principal allotee# Respondent presented the letter o clinical psychologist

who evaluated the behavior o ,artini# )ased on the report

,artini shows immature personality disorder dependencypatterns and selcentered

motives# The situation is serious grave e*isting already duringthe adolescent

period and incurable# :s such

,artini is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations in

marriage and amily

9anuary 1 11 Cebu City RTC declared that marriage void since

,artini was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential martial

obligations o marriage and that same incapacity e*isted at the time o the

celebration o the marriage

6$$F/D -hether or not ,artiniOs being a mamaOs boy constitutes as a

psychological in capacity under :rt# 4@ o the =amily Code


15/20

B/LD :rt# 4@ should not be conused with a divorce law that cuts the material bond

at the time thecauses maniest themselves nor with legal separation in which the

grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence

moral pressure moral corruption civil interdiction drug addiction habitual

alcoholism se*ual infdelity abandonment and the li'e# The term psychological

incapacity to be a ground or the nullity o marriage under :rticle 4@ o the =amily

Code reers to a serious psychological illness aQicting a party even beore the

celebration o the marriage# 6t is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive

one o awareness o the duties and responsibilities o the matrimonial bond one is

about to assume# :s all people may have certain .uir's and idiosyncrasies or

isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders there is hardly

a doubt that the intendment o the law has been to confne the meaning o

psychological incapacity to the most serious cases o personality disorders clearly

demonstrative o an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and signifcance

to the marriage# MThe root cause must be identifed as a psychological illness and

its incapacitating nature must be ully e*plained# =or psychological incapacity to

render a marriage void ab initio it must be characteri>ed byD3#

8ravity must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable o

carrying outthe ordinary duties re.uired in a marriage1#

9uridical antecedence it must be rooted in the history o the party antedating the

marriage although overt maniestations may emerge only ater the marriage4#

6ncurability must be incurable or even i it were otherwise the cure would be

beyond the means o the party involved6n petitions or the declaration o nullity o

marriage the burden o proving the nullity o marriage lies on the plainti# :ny

doubt should be resolved in avor o the e*istence and continuation o the marriage

and against the dissolution and nullity !semper praesumitur pro matrimonio":s seen

in this case Lynette ailed to provide su5cient evidence to prove

,artiniOs psychologicalincapacity# -hile the court sympathi>es with her predication

its frst and oremost duty is to apply the law#

Psycho incapacity must be proven by the petitioner beyond doubt or ade.uately

proven and that it is incurable# Legal separation can be used instead o annulment

in cases that does not apply to the latter# The re.uisites o annulment must be

present thus or the petition to be granted# )eing I,amas boyJ is not a su5cient

ground


16/20

19. Paras vs. Paras 529 SCRA %1 &

'a(!s

n Ja+ 21, 196$, pe!i!ioner Rosa Kap "arried responden! 3us!o 3. Paras in

)indo+,Negros rien!al. The+ #ego! -our =$> (hildren, na"el+ Raoul

=de(eased>, Cind+ Rose=de(eased>, /ahlia, and Reuel. T*en!+nine =29>

+ears !herea-!er, or on Ja+ 27, 199,Rosa;led *i!h !he Regional Trial

Cour! =RTC>, )ran(h 1, /u"ague!e Ci!+, a (o"plain! -or annul"en! o- her

"arriage *i!h 3us!o, under Ar!i(le 6 o- !he 'a"il+ Code, do(He!ed as Civil

Case No. 1:61. She alleged !ha! 3us!o is ps+(hologi(all+ in(apa(i!a!ed !o

eer(ise !he essen!ial o#liga!ions o- "arriage as sho*n #+ !he -ollo*ing

(ir(u"s!an(es =a> he dissipa!ed her #usiness asse!s and -orged her

signa!ure in one "or!gage !ransa(!ion8 =#> he lived *i!h a on(u#ine and

sired a (hild *i!h her8 =(> he did no! give ;nan(ial suppor! !o his (hildren8

and =d>he has #een re"iss in his du!ies #o!h as a hus#and and as a -a!her.

She "e! 3us!o in 1961in )indo+. She *as !hen a s!uden! o- San Carlos

4niversi!+, Ce#u Ci!+. e (our!ed her, -reBuen!l+ spending !i"e a! her

)o!i(a. ven!uall+, in196$ (onvin(ed !ha! he loved her, she agreed !o

"arr+ hi". Their *edding *as (onsidered one o- !he "os!

(ele#ra!ed"arriages in )indo+. So"e!i"e in 1975, !heir daugh!er Cind+

Rose *as aMi(!ed *i!h leuHe"ia.I! *as her -a"il+ *ho paid -or her

"edi(a!ion. Also, in 19%$, !heir son Raoul *as ele(!ro(u!ed *hile 3us!o

*as in !heir res! house *i!h his #arHadas. e did no! heed her earlier

advi(e !o #ring Raoul in !he res! house as !he la!!er has !he ha#i! o-

(li"#ing !he roo-!op. To (ope *i!h !he dea!h o- !he (hildren, !he en!ire

-a"il+ *en! !o !he 4ni!ed S!a!es. o*ever, a-!er !hree "on!hs, 3us!o

a#andoned !he" and le-! -or !he Philippines. 4pon her re!urn !o !he

Philippines, she *as sho(Hed !o ;nd her )o!i(a and o!her #usinesses

heav+ in de#! and he disposed *i!hou! her (onsen! a (onugal pie(e o-

land. A! o!her !i"es, he per"i!!ed !he "uni(ipal govern"en! !o !aHe

gasoline -ro" !heir gas s!a!ion -ree o- (harge. is a(! o- "ain!aining a

"is!ress and siring an illegi!i"a!e (hild *as !he las! s!ra* !ha! pro"p!ed

her !o ;le !he presen! (ase. She -ound !ha!a-!er leaving !heir (onugal

house in 19%%, 3us!o lived *i!h 3o(el+n Ching. Their (oha#i!a!ion resul!ed

in !he #ir!h o- a #a#+ girl, C+ndee Rose, o#viousl+ na"ed a-!er her =Rosa>

and

3us!oOs


17/20

de(eased daugh!er Cind+ Rose Paras.e also denied -orging her signa!ure

in one "or!gage !ransa(!ion. e "ain!ained !ha!he did no! dispose o- a

(onugal proper!+ and !ha! he and Rosa personall+ signed !he rene*al o-a

sugar (rop loan #e-ore !he

#anH@s

au!horied e"plo+ee. e did no! a#andon his -a"il+ in !he 4ni!ed S!a!es.

'or his par!, he *as gran!ed onl+ !hree => "on!hs leave as "uni(ipal

"a+or o- )indo+, !hus, he i""edia!el+ re!urned !o !he Philippines. e

spen! -or his

(hildren@s

edu(a!ion.A! ;rs!, he resen!ed suppor!ing !he" #e(ause he *as us!

s!ar!ing his la* pra(!i(e and #esides, !heir (onugal asse!s *ere "ore

!han enough !o provide -or !heir needs. e ad"i!!ed !hough !ha! !here

*ere !i"es he -ailed !o give !he" ;nan(ial suppor! #e(ause o- his la(H o-

in(o"e. ?ha! (aused !he inevi!a#le -a"il+ #reaHou! *as Rosa@s a(! o-

e"#arrassing hi" during his #ir!hda+ (ele#ra!ion in 19%7. She did no!

prepare -ood -or !he gues!s. ?hen (on-ron!ed, she re!or!ed !ha! she has

no!hing !o do *i!h his #ir!hda+. This (onvin(ed hi" o- her la(H o- (on(ern.

This *as -ur!her aggrava!ed *hen she denied his reBues! -or engine oil

*hen his vehi(le #roHe do*n in a "oun!ainous and NPAin-es!ed area. As

!o !he (harge o- (on(u#ine, he alleged !ha! 3o(el+nChing is no! his

"is!ress, #u! her se(re!ar+ in his La* D(e. She *as i"pregna!ed #+

her#o+-riend, a (er!ain 0relle Le((ioness. C+ndee Rose Ching Le((ioness is

no! his daugh!er. A-!er !rial or on 'e#ruar+ 2%, 1995, !he RTC rendered a

/e(ision upholding !he validi!+ o- !he "arriage. I! -ound !ha! =a> 3us!o did

no! a#andon !he (onugal ho"e as he *as -or(ed !o leave a-!er Rosa

pos!ed guards a! !he ga!es o- !heir house8 =#> !he (onugal asse!s *ere

suD(ien! !o suppor! !he -a"il+ needs, !hus, !here *as no need -or 3us!o !o

shell ou! his li"i!ed salar+8 and =(> !he (harge o- in;deli!+ is

unsu#s!an!ia!ed. The RTC o#served !ha! !he rela!ionship #e!*een !he

par!ies s!ar!ed *ell, nega!ing !he eis!en(e o- ps+(hologi(al

in(apa(i!+ on ei!her par!+ a! !he !i"e o- !he (ele#ra!ion o- !heir "arriage.

And las!l+, i! ruled !ha!!here appeared !o #e a (ollusion #e!*een !he" as

#o!h sough! !he de(lara!ion o- nulli!+ o- !heir"arriage.n (!o#er 1%,

2:::, !his Cour! rendered i!s /e(ision ;nding hi" guil!+ o- -alsi-+ing

Rosa@s


18/20

signa!ure in #anH do(u"en!s, i""orali!+, and a#andon"en! o- his -a"il+.

e *assuspended -ro" !he pra(!i(e o- la*, !hus !he responden! is

suspended -ro" !he pra(!i(e o- la*-or SI =6> JNTS on !he (harge o-

-alsi-+ing his

*i-e@s

signa!ure in #anH do(u"en!s ando!her rela!ed loan ins!ru"en!s8 and -or

N =1> KAR -ro" !he pra(!i(e o- la* on !he (hargeso- i""orali!+ and

a#andon"en! o- his o*n -a"il+, !he penal!ies !o #e served si"ul!aneousl+.

Le!no!i(e o- !his /e(ision #e spread in responden!@s

re(ord as an a!!orne+, and no!i(e o- !he sa"eserved on !he In!egra!ed )ar

o- !he Philippines and on !he D(e o- !he Cour! Ad"inis!ra!or

-or(ir(ula!ion !o all !he (our!s (on(erned. n /e(e"#er %, 2:::, !he Cour!

o- Appeals aDr"ed !heRTC /e(ision in !he presen! (ase, holding !ha! !he

eviden(e o- !he plain!i =Rosa> -alls shor! o-!he s!andards reBuired #+ la*

!o de(ree a nulli!+ o- "arriage. I! ruled !ha! 3us!o@s allegedde-e(!s or

idios+n(rasies *ere suD(ien!l+ eplained #+ !he eviden(e, Rosa

(on!ends !ha! !his Cour!@s

-a(!ual ;ndings in A.C. No. 5 -or dis#ar"en! are (on(lusive on !he

presen!(ase. ConseBuen!l+, !he Cour! o- Appeals erred in rendering

(on!rar+ -a(!ual ;ndings. Also, sheargues !ha! she ;led !he ins!an!

(o"plain! so"e!i"e in Ja+, 199

Issues

1> ?he!her !he -a(!ual ;ndings o- !his Cour! in A.C. No. 5 are

(on(lusive on !he presen!(ase82> ?he!her a re"and o- !his (ase !o !he

RTC -or re(ep!ion o- eper! !es!i"on+ on !he roo!(ause o-

3us!o@s

alleged ps+(hologi(al in(apa(i!+ is ne(essar+8 and> ?he!her !he !o!ali!+

o- eviden(e in !he (ase sho*s ps+(hologi(al in(apa(i!+ on !he par! o-3us!o

eld

1> A reading o- !he Cour! o-

Appeals@

/e(ision sho*s !ha! she has no reason !o -eel aggrieved.In -a(!, !he

appella!e (our! even assu"ed !ha! her (harges are !rue, #u! (on(luded

!ha! !he+are insuD(ien! !o de(lare !he "arriage void on !he ground o-

ps+(hologi(al in(apa(i!+. 3us!oQsalleged in;deli!+, -ailure !o suppor! his

-a"il+ and alleged a#andon"en! o- !heir -a"il+ ho"e are!rue, su(h !rai!s

are a! #es! indi(a!ors !ha! he is un;! !o #e(o"e an ideal hus#and and


19/20

-a!her.o*ever, #+ !he"selves, !hese grounds are insuD(ien! !o de(lare

!he "arriage void due !oan in(ura#le ps+(hologi(al in(apa(i!+. These

grounds, *e "us! e"phasie, do no! "ani-es! !ha!he *as !rul+ in

(ogni!ive o- !he #asi( "ari!al (ovenan!s !ha! he "us! assu"e and

dis(harge as a"arried person. ?hile !he+ "a+ "ani-es! !he gravi!+ o-

his alleged ps+(hologi(al in(apa(i!+,!he+ do no! ne(essaril+ sho*

Oin(ura#ili!+@,

su(h !ha! *hile his a(!s viola!ed !he (ovenan!s o-"arriage, !he+ do no!

ne(essaril+ sho* !ha! su(h a(!s sho* an irrepara#l+ hopeless s!a!eo-

ps+(hologi(al in(apa(i!+ *hi(h preven!s hi" -ro" under!aHing !he #asi(

o#liga!ions o-"arriage in !he -u!ure.2> The roo! (ause o- !he ps+(hologi(al

in(apa(i!+ "us! #e =a> "edi(all+ or (lini(all+ iden!i;ed,=#> alleged in !he

(o"plain!, =(> suD(ien!l+ proven #+ eper!s, and =d> (learl+ eplained

in!he de(ision. Ar!i(le 6 o- !he 'a"il+ Code reBuires !ha! !he in(apa(i!+

"us! #e ps+(hologi(al no! ph+si(al, al!hough i!s "ani-es!a!ions andEor

s+"p!o"s "a+ #e ph+si(al. The eviden(e "us!

(onvin(e !he (our! !ha! !he par!ies, or one o- !he", *ere "en!all+ or

ps+(hi(all+ ill !o su(h ane!en! !ha! !he person (ould no! have Hno*n !he

o#liga!ions he *as assu"ing, or Hno*ing !he",(ould no! have given valid

assu"p!ion !hereo-. Al!hough no ea"ple o- su(h in(apa(i!+ need #egiven

here so as no! !o li"i! !he appli(a!ion o- !he provision under !he prin(iple

o- eusde"generis, never!heless su(h roo! (ause "us! #e iden!i;ed as a

ps+(hologi(al illness and i!sin(apa(i!a!ing na!ure -ull+ eplained. per!

eviden(e "a+ #e given #+ Buali;ed ps+(hia!ris!sand (lini(al ps+(hologis!

> ART. 6. A "arriage (on!ra(!ed #+ a par!+ *ho, a! !he !i"e o-

(ele#ra!ion, *asps+(hologi(all+ in(apa(i!a!ed !o (o"pl+ *i!h !he essen!ial

"ari!al o#liga!ions o- "arriage shallliHe*ise #e void even i- su(h

in(apa(i!+ #e(o"es "ani-es! onl+ a-!er i!s sole"nia!ion.Ps+(hologi(al

in(apa(i!+ "us! #e (hara(!eried #+ =a> gravi!+8 =#> uridi(al an!e(eden(e8

and =(>in(ura#ili!+

2:. Repu#li( o- !he Philippines vs. Jolina 0R No. 1:%76, 'e#ruar+ 1, 1997 &


20/20

=:CT$Roridel & Reynaldo ,olina were married on :pril 32 3G?H at the $an :gustin Church# They had ason :ndre ,olina# : year ater the marriage Reynaldo started maniesting signs o immaturityand irresponsibilityD !3" spent more time with his riends !1" depended on his parents or aid &assistance !4" not honest with the fnances !2" relieved o his %ob ma'ing Roridel the breadwinnero the amily# Roridel went to live with his parents and aterwards Reynaldo abandoned her andthe child# Roridel fled a case or the declaration o nullity o their marriage by virtue o herhusband;s psychological incapacity# Reynaldo claims that Roridel;s strange behavior reusal toperorm marital duties & ailure to run the household & handle fnances caused their .uarrels#Roridel on the other hand claims that her husband is immature irresponsible dependentdisrespectul arrogant chronic liar & infdel# Be now lives with a mistress with whom he has achild#

6$$F/-7N Reynaldo is psychologically incapacitated(

B/LN7# ,arriage is valid#

R:T67D

3# They seem to have a di5culty or outright reusal or neglect in perorming their obligations#They;re not incapable o doing them#

1# =ailure o their e*pectations is not tantamount to psychological incapacity#

4# 8uidelines or :rt# 4@

a# )urden o proo to show nullity o marriageD plainti# Presumption o e*istence o marriageover its dissolution & nullity#

b# Root cause o incapacity should beD medically+clinically defned alleged in complaint provenby e*perts clearly e*plained in decision#

c# /*isting at time o celebration o marriage#

d# ,edically+clinically permanent or incurable whether absolute or relative# 6ncapacity directlyrelated to assumption o marital obligations doesn;t include incapacity in proession etc#

e# 8rave to render them incapable# Not mere reusal neglect or di5culty or ill will#

# /ssential obligations outlined in =C :rt# @?K3 and 11 113 11H# $tate noncompliance inpetition with evidence include in decision#

g# Consider National :ppellate ,atrimonial Tribunal o the Catholic Church in the Philippinesinterpretations# Not binding should be given respect since this law originated rom Canon law#Barmoni>e civil law w+religious aith#

h# Prosecuting attorney+fscal and $ol# 8en# will appear as counsels or the state# They shouldsubmit certifcation within 3H days rom submission o case or resolution

summary of case digest

Documents