21. marcos vs. marcos

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 136490 October 19, 2000 BRENDA B. MARCOS, petitioner, vs. WILSON G. MARCOS, respondent. D E C I S I O N PANGANIBAN, J.: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however, that the respondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a conditio sine qua non for such declaration. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the July 24, 1998 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 55588, which disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, the contested decision is set aside and the marriage between the parties is hereby declared valid." 2 Also challenged by petitioner is the December 3, 1998 CA Resolution denying her Motion for Reconsideration. Earlier, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had ruled thus: "WHEREFORE, the marriage between petitioner Brenda B. Marcos and respondent Wilson G. Marcos, solemnized on September 6, 1982 in Pasig City is declared null and void ab initio pursuant to Art. 36 of the Family Code. The conjugal properties, if any, is dissolved [sic] in accordance with Articles 126 and 129 of the same Code in relation to Articles 50, 51 and 52 relative to the delivery of the legitime of [the] parties' children. In the best interest and welfare of the minor

Upload: anatheaacaban

Post on 18-Aug-2015

10 views

Category:

Documents

3 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

DESCRIPTION

21. Marcos vs. Marcos

TRANSCRIPT

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 136490 October 19, 2000BRENDA B. MARCOS, petitioner, vs.W!SON G. MARCOS, respondent.D E C I S I O NPANGANBAN, J.:Psycholoical incapacity! as a "oun# fo" #ecla"in the nullity of a $a""iae! $ay be establishe# by the totality of evi#ence p"esente#. The"e is no "e%ui"e$ent! ho&eve"!that the "espon#ent shoul# be e'a$ine# by a physician o" a psycholoist as a conditio sine qua non fo" such #ecla"ation.The Case(efo"e us is a Petition fo" Revie& on Certiorari un#e" Rule )* of the Rules of Cou"t! assailin the +uly ,)! -../ Decision- of the Cou"t of 0ppeals 1C02 in C034R CV No. ***//! &hich #ispose# as follo&s567HERE8ORE! the conteste# #ecision is set asi#e an# the $a""iae bet&een the pa"ties is he"eby #ecla"e# vali#.6,0lso challene# by petitione" is the Dece$be" 9! -../ C0 Resolution #enyin he" Motion fo" Reconsi#e"ation.Ea"lie"! the Reional T"ial Cou"t 1RTC2 ha# "ule# thus567HERE8ORE! the $a""iae bet&een petitione" ("en#a (. Ma"cos an# "espon#ent 7ilson 4. Ma"cos! sole$ni:e# on Septe$be" ;! -./, in Pasi City is #ecla"e# null an# voi# ab initio pu"suant to 0"t. 9; of the 8a$ily Co#e. The con in acco"#ance &ith 0"ticles -,; an# -,. of the sa$e Co#e in "elation to 0"ticles *?! *- an# *, "elative to the #elive"y of the leiti$e of =the> pa"ties@ chil#"en. In the best inte"est an# &elfa"e of the $ino" chil#"en! thei" custo#yis "ante# to petitione" sub

District 4A / 5A / 6A Composite Softball - 2018 Official 1/12/2018 · PDF fileThu-Sat San Marcos vs San Marcos Varsity Tournament; San Marcos ~~~~ TBA; District 4A / 5A / 6A Composite

Imelda Marcos vs Comelec

PowerPoint Presentation · Drupal vs. WordPress vs.?? Constant Contact vs. MailChimp vs. Exact Target vs. Responsys vs.?? Open source applications? 5/21/2015 Page:19 Website. 5/21/2015

marcos vs COMELEC_GR_119976

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS (REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA

21. Velarde vs SJS.docx

Drinking Age: 21 vs. 18

21 JUIN SOLSTICE // BAF VS POTEMKINE

Marcos vs Sandiganbayan, GR No 126995

6/21 Game Notes vs Worcester

Gonzales vs Comelec 21 SCRA 774

Examinando lasEscrituras diariamente - download … · 5 Mateo 20, 21 12 Mateo 22, 23 19 Mateo 24 26 Mateo 25 2 Mateo 26 9 Mateo 27, 28 16 Marcos 1, 2 23 Marcos 3, 4 30 Marcos 5,