Download - Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
1/34
5
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 179922 December 16,
2008
JUAN DE DIOS CAROS,petitioner,
vs.
!EICIDAD SANDO"A, #$%o &'o(' #%
!EICIDAD S. "DA. DE CAROS or
!EICIDAD SANDO"A CAROS or!EICIDAD SANDO"A "DA. DE
CAROS, #') TEO!IO CAROS II,
responents.
D E C I S I O N
RE*ES, R.T.,J.+
ON* # %o-%ecan initiate an action to
sever the !arital bon for !arria"es
sole!ni#e )-r'/ e eec34 o e!#m$4 Co)e, e$cept cases co!!ence
ror o M#rc 15, 200. The nullit% an
annul!ent of a !arria"e cannot be eclare
in a &u"!ent on the pleain"s, su!!ar%
&u"!ent, or confession of &u"!ent.
Te !#c%
'. Spouses (eli$ ). *arlos an (elipa
+le!ia ie intestate. The% left si$ parcelsof lan to their co!pulsor% heirs, Teo$o
C#r$o%an eo'er J-#' De Do%
C#r$o%.
. Durin" the lifeti!e of (eli$ *arlos, he
a"ree to transfer his estate to Teofilo. The
a"ree!ent -as !ae in orer to avoi the
pa%!ent of inheritance ta$es. Teofilo, in
turn, unertoo to eliver an turn over the
share of the other le"al heir, petitioner /uan
De Dios *arlos.
+ventuall%, the first three 012 parcels of lan-ere transferre an re"istere in the na!e
of Teofilo. These three 012 lots are no-
covere b% Transfer *ertificate of Title
0T*T2 No. 1343 issue b% the Re"istr% of
Dees of Maati *it% T*T No. '1678'
issue b% the Re"istr% of Dees of Maati
*it% an T*T No. '16754 issue b% the
Re"istr% of Dees of Maati *it%.
Parcel No. 3 -as re"istere in the na!e ofpetitioner. The lot is no- covere b% T*T
No. '8737' issue b% the Re"istr% of Dees
of Maati *it%.
1. On Ma% '1, '66, Teofilo ie intestate.
He -as survive b% re%o')e'% !e$c)#)
an their son, Teo$o C#r$o% II0Teofilo II2.
9pon Teofilo:s eath, Parcel Nos. 5 ; 8
-ere re"istere in the na!e of responent.
3. In '663, petitioner institute a suit a"ainst
responents before the RT*in Muntinlupa
*it%. In the sai case, the parties sub!itte
an cause the approval of a partial
co!pro!ise a"ree!ent.
5. Petitioner an responents entere into
t-o !ore contracts in
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
2/34
In his co!plaint, petitioner asserte that the
m#rr#/e be(ee' % $#e broer Teo$o
#') re%o')e' !e$c)#) (#% # '-$$4in
vie- of the #b%e'ce o e re-re)
m#rr#/e $ce'%e.
He lie-ise !aintaine # % )ece#%e)
broer (#% 'eer e '#-r#$ 'or e
#)o3e #er o re%o')e' Teo$o
C#r$o% II.
>. On October '8, '665, responents enie
the !aterial aver!ents of petitioner:s
co!plaint. Responents contene that the
earth 0(noun)an insufcient quantity or
number2 of etails re"arin" the re=uisite!arria"e license i not invaliate
(elicia:s !arria"e to Teofilo.Responents
eclare that Teofilo II -as the $$e/m#e
c$)of the ecease Teofilo *arlos -ith
another -o!an.
)ut before the parties coul even procee to
pre?trial, re%o')e'% mo3e) or %-mm#r4
-)/me'.
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
3/34
. Declarin" that the efenant
!inor, Teo$o S. C#r$o% II, % 'o
e '#-r#$, $$e/m#e, or $e/#$$4
#)oe) c$) o e $#e Teo$o E.
C#r$o%09nerscorin"
supplie2
The ne- Rule reco"ni#es that the husban
an the -ife are the sole architects of a
health%, lovin", peaceful !arria"e. The% are
the onl% ones -ho can ecie -hen an ho-
to buil the founations of !arria"e.The
spouses alone are the en"ineers of their
!arital life. The% are si!ultaneousl% the
irectors an actors of their !atri!onial
true?to?life pla%. Hence, the% alone can an
shoul ecie -hen to tae a cut, but onl% in
accorance -ith the "rouns allo-e b%
la-.
The innovation incorporate in A.M. No.
021110SC %e% or # )em#rc#o' $'e
be(ee' m#rr#/e% co3ere) b4 e !#m$4
Co)ean o%e %o$em'Be) -')er e
C3$ Co)e.The Rule e$tens onl% to
!arria"es entere into urin" the effectivit%
of the (a!il% *oe -hich too effect on
A-/-% , 1988.'4
The avent of the Rule on Declaration of
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
9/34
an is prospective in its application.
09nerscorin" supplie2
Petitioner co!!ence the nullit% of
!arria"e case a"ainst responent (elicia
in '665. The !arria"e in controvers% -ascelebrate on Ma% '3, '68. Chich la-
-oul "overn epens upon -hen the
!arria"e too place.1
The !arria"e havin" been sole!ni#e prior
to the effectivit% of the (a!il% *oe, the
applicable la- is the *ivil *oe -hich -as
the la- in effect at the ti!e of its
celebration.3)ut the *ivil *oe is silent as
to -ho !a% brin" an action to eclare the!arria"e voi. Does this !ean that an%
person can brin" an action for the
eclaration of nullit% of !arria"eG
:e re%o') ' e 'e/#3e. The absence
of a provision in the *ivil *oe cannot be
construe as a license for an% person to
institute a nullit% of !arria"e case. Such
person !ust appear to be the part% -ho
stans to be benefite or in&ure b% the
&u"!ent in the suit, or the part% entitle to
the avails of the suit.5+lse-ise state,
plaintiff !ust be the real part%?in?interest.
(or it is basic in proceural la- that ever%
action !ust be prosecute an efene in
the na!e of the real part%?in?interest.8
Interest -ithin the !eanin" of the rule
!eans !aterial interest or an interest in
issue to be affecte b% the ecree or
&u"!ent of the case, as istin"uishe fro!!ere curiosit% about the =uestion involve
or a !ere inciental interest.One havin" no
!aterial interest to protect cannot invoe the
&urisiction of the court as plaintiff in an
action.Chen plaintiff is not the real part%?
in?interest, the case is is!issible on the
"roun of lac of cause of action.>
Illu!inatin" on this point isAmor%Catalan
v. Court of Appeals,4-here the *ourt helB
True, uner the Ne- *ivil *oe
-hich is the la- in force at the ti!e
the responents -ere !arrie, or
even in the (a!il% *oe, there is no
specific provision as to -ho can file
a petition to eclare the nullit% of
!arria"e ho-ever, onl% a part% -ho
can e!onstrate )proper interest)
can file the sa!e. < petition to
eclare the nullit% of !arria"e, liean% other actions, must be
prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party%in%interest an must
be based on a cause of action. Thus,
inNi*al v. +adayog, the *ourt hel
that the chilren have the personalit%
to file the petition to eclare the
nullit% of !arria"e of their ecease
father to their step!other as it affects
their successional ri"hts.
$ $ $ $
In fine, petitioner:s personalit% to file
the petition to eclare the nullit% of
!arria"e cannot be ascertaine
because of the absence of the ivorce
ecree an the forei"n la- allo-in"
it. Hence, a re!an of the case to the
trial court for reception of aitional
evience is necessar% to eter!ine-hether responent Orlano -as
"rante a ivorce ecree an -hether
the forei"n la- -hich "rante the
sa!e allo-s or restricts re!arria"e.
If it is prove that a vali ivorce
ecree -as obtaine an the sa!e
%
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt28 -
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
10/34
i not allo- responent Orlano:s
re!arria"e, then the trial court
shoul eclare responent:s !arria"e
as bi"a!ous an voi ab initiobut
reuce the a!ount of !oral
a!a"es fro! P177,777.77 toP57,777.77 an e$e!plar% a!a"es
fro! P77,777.77 to P5,777.77. On
the contrar%, if it is prove that a
vali ivorce ecree -as obtaine
-hich allo-e Orlano to re!arr%,
then the trial court !ust is!iss the
instant petition to eclare nullit% of
!arria"e on the "roun that
petitioner (elicitas
lacs le"al personalit% to file thesa!e.609nerscorin" supplie2
III. Te c#%e m-% be rem#')e) o
)eerm'e (eer or 'o eo'er % #
re#$#r4''ere% o %ee& e
)ec$#r#o' o '-$$4 o e m#rr#/e '
co'ro3er%4.
In the case at bench, the recors reveal that
-hen Teofilo ie intestate in '66, his onl%
survivin" co!pulsor% heirs are responent
(elicia an their son, Teofilo II. 9ner the
la- on succession, successional ri"hts are
trans!itte fro! the !o!ent of eath of the
eceent an the co!pulsor% heirs are calle
to succee b% operation of la-.17
9pon Teofilo:s eath in '66, all his
propert%, ri"hts an obli"ations to the e$tent
of the value of the inheritance are
trans!itte to his co!pulsor% heirs. Theseheirs -ere responents (elicia an Teofilo
II, as the survivin" spouse an chil,
respectivel%.
of the *ivil *oe outline -ho
are co!pulsor% heirs, to -itB
0'2 @e"iti!ate chilren an
escenants, -ith respect to their
le"iti!ate parents an ascenants
02 In efault of the fore"oin",
le"iti!ate parents an ascenants,-ith respect to their le"iti!ate
chilren an escenants
012 The -io- or -io-er
032
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
11/34
collateral relatives fro! succeein" to the
estate of the eceent. The presence of
le"iti!ate, ille"iti!ate, or aopte chil or
chilren of the ecease preclues
succession b% collateral relatives.1
*onversel%, if there are no escenants,ascenants, ille"iti!ate chilren, or a
survivin" spouse, the collateral relatives
shall succee to the entire estate of the
eceent.11
If responent Teofilo II is eclare an
finall% proven not to be the le"iti!ate,
ille"iti!ate, or aopte son of Teofilo,
petitioner -oul then have a personalit% to
see the nullit% of !arria"e of his eceasebrother -ith responent (elicia. This is
so, consierin" that co$$#er#$ re$#3e%, $&e
# broer #') %%er, #c-re %-cce%%o'#$
r/ o3er e e%#e e )ece)e' )e%
(o- %%-e #') (o- #%ce')#'% '
e )rec $'e.
The recors reveal that Teofilo -as
preecease b% his parents. He ha no other
siblin"s but petitioner. Thus, if Teofilo II is
finall% foun an proven to be not a
le"iti!ate, ille"iti!ate, or aopte son of
Teofilo, petitioner succees to the other half
of the estate of his brother, the first half
bein" allotte to the -io- pursuant to
- e RTC % %rc$4
'%r-ce) o )%m%% e '-$$4 o
m#rr#/e c#%e or $#c& o c#-%e o #co'
% ro3e' b4 e3)e'ce # Teo$o II % #
$e/m#e, $$e/m#e, or $e/#$$4 #)oe)
%o' o Teo$o C#r$o%, e )ece#%e)
broer o eo'er.
I". Rem#') o e c#%e re/#r)'/ e
-e%o' o $#o' o re%o')e' Teo$o
II % roer #') ' or)er. Tere % # 'ee
to vacate the isposition of the trial court as
to the other causes of action before it.
Peo'er )) 'o #%%/' #% error or
'ero%e #% %%-e e r-$'/ o e CA o'
e rem#') o e c#%e co'cer''/ e
$#o' o re%o')e' Teo$o II. This
11
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt35 -
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
12/34
not-ithstanin", Ce shoul not leave the
!atter han"in" in li!bo.
This *ourt has the authorit% to revie-
!atters not specificall% raise or assi"ne as
error b% the parties, if their consieration isnecessar% in arrivin" at a &ust resolution of
the case.18
Ce a"ree -ith the *< that -ithout trial on
the !erits havin" been conucte in the
case, petitioner:s bare alle"ation that
responent Teofilo II -as aopte fro! an
ini"ent couple is insufficient to support a
total forfeiture of ri"hts arisin" fro! his
putative filiation. Ho-ever, Ce are notincline to support its pronounce!ent that
the eclaration of responent (elicia as to
the ille"iti!ate filiation of responent
Teofilo II is !ore creible. (or the "uiance
of the appellate court, such eclaration of
responent (elicia shoul not be affore
creence. Ce re!in the *< of the "uarant%
provie b% . The chil shall be
consiere le"iti!ate althou"h the
!other !a% have eclare a"ainst its
le"iti!ac% or !a% have been
sentence as an aulteress.
09nerscorin" supplie2
It is stresse that (elicia:s eclaration
a"ainst the le"iti!ate status of Teofilo II is
the ver% act that is proscribe b%
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
13/34
TH+ HONOR
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
14/34
@eouel appeale to the *ourt of
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
15/34
#'e)#'/ e m#rr#/e, althou"h the overt
!anifestations !a% e!er"e onl% after the
!arria"e an m-% be 'c-r#b$eor, even if it
-ere other-ise, e c-re (o-$) be be4o') e
me#'% o e #r4 '3o$3e).
EVoi an Voiable Marria"es in the (a!il%
*oe an their Parallels in *anon @a-,E =uotin"
fro! the Dia"nostic Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorer b% the
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
16/34
sub&ect to stipulation, e$cept that !arria"e
settle!ents !a% fi$ the propert% relations urin"
the !arria"e -ithin the li!its provie b% this
*oe. 0+!phasis supplie.2
Our *onstitution is no less e!phaticB
Sec. '. The State reco"ni#es the (ilipino fa!il%
as the founation of the nation.
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
17/34
C;I MING TSOI,petitioner,
vs.
COURT O! APPEAS #') GINA AO
TSOI, responents.
TORRES, JR.,J.:
Man has not invente a reliable co!pass b%
-hich to steer a !arria"e in its &ourne% over
trouble -aters. @a-s are see!in"l% inae=uate.
Over ti!e, !uch reliance has been place in the
-ors of the unseen han of Hi! -ho create
all thin"s.
!#c%+
'. On Ma% , '644, the plaintiff !arrie the
efenant at the Manila *atheral, . . .
Intra!uros Manila, as evience b% their
Marria"e *ontract. 0+$h. E
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
18/34
March '5, '646, there -as no se$ual contact
bet-een the!. )ut, the reason for this,
accorin" to the efenant, -as that ever%ti!e
he -ants to have se$ual intercourse -ith his
-ife,
she al-a%s avoie hi! an -henever hecaresses her private parts,
she al-a%s re!ove his hans.
The efenant clai!s, that he force his -ife to
have se$ -ith hi! onl% once but he i not
continue because she -as shain" an she i
not lie it. So he stoppe.
There are t-o 02 reasons, accorin" to the
efenant , -h% the plaintiff file this case
a"ainst hi!, an these areB
0'2 that she is afrai that she -ill be force to
return the pieces of &e-elr% of his !other, an,
02 that her husban, the efenant, -ill
consu!!ate their !arria"e.
The efenant insiste that their !arria"e -ill
re!ain vali because the% are still ver% %oun"
an there is still a chance to overco!e their
ifferences.
The efenant sub!itte hi!self to a ph%sicale$a!ination. His penis -as e$a!ine b% Dr.
Ser"io
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
19/34
in affir!in" the annul!ent of the !arria"e
bet-een the parties ecree b% the lo-er court
-ithout full% satisf%in" itself that there -as no
collusion bet-een the!.
Ce fin the petition to be bereft 0deprived o
or lac"ing something2 of !erit.
Petitioner contens that bein" the plaintiff in
*ivil *ase No. L?46?1'3', private responent
has the buren of provin" the alle"ations in her
co!plaint that since there -as no inepenent
evience to prove the alle"e non?coitus
bet-een the parties, there re!ains no other basis
for the court:s conclusion e$cept the a!ission
of petitioner that public polic% shoul ai acts
intene to valiate !arria"e an shoul retar
acts intene to invaliate the! that theconclusion ra-n b% the trial court on the
a!issions an confessions of the parties in
their pleain"s an in the course of the trial is
!isplace since it coul have been a prouct of
collusion an that in actions for annul!ent of
!arria"e, the !aterial facts alle"e in the
co!plaint shall al-a%s be prove.
Section ', Rule '6 of the Rules of *ourt reasB
Section '. /u"!ent on the pleain"s. Chere
an ans-er fails to tener an issue, or other-ise
a!its the !aterial alle"ations of the averse
part%:s pleain", the court !a%, on !otion of
that part%, irect &u"!ent on such pleain". )ut
in actions for annul!ent of !arria"e or for le"al
separation the !aterial facts alle"e in the
co!plaint shall al-a%s be prove.
The fore"oin" provision pertains to a &u"!ent
on the pleain"s. Chat sai provision sees to
prevent is annul!ent of !arria"e -ithout trial.
The assaile ecision -as not base on such a
&u"!ent on the pleain"s. Chen privateresponent testifie uner oath before the trial
court an -as cross?e$a!ine b% oath before the
trial court an -as cross?e$a!ine b% the
averse part%, she thereb% presente evience in
for! of a testi!on%.
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
20/34
se$ -ith each other constitutes ps%cholo"ical
incapacit% of both. He points out as error the
failure of the trial court to !ae Ea cate"orical
finin" about the alle"e ps%cholo"ical
incapacit% an an in?epth anal%sis of the
reasons for such refusal -hich !a% not be
necessaril% ue to ph%scholo"ical isorersE
because there !i"ht have been other reasons,
i.e., ph%sical isorers, such as aches, pains or
other isco!forts, -h% private responent
-oul not -ant to have se$ual intercourse fro!
Ma% , '644 to March '5, '646, in a short span
of '7 !onths.
(irst, it !ust be state that neither the trial court
nor the responent court !ae a finin" on -ho
bet-een petitioner an private responent
refuses to have se$ual contact -ith the other.The fact re!ains, ho-ever, that there has never
been coitus 0(Noun)'he act o sexualprocreation between a man and a woman
requiring insertion o the penis into the vagina
and culminating in eaculation o semen*2
bet-een the!.
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
21/34
of her !arria"e -ere frustrate b% her husban:s
inae=uac%. *onsierin" the innate !oest% of
the (ilipino -o!an, it is har to believe that she
-oul e$pose her private life to public scrutin%
an fabricate testi!on% a"ainst her husban if it
-ere not necessar% to put her life in orer an
put to rest her !arital status.
Ce are not i!presse b% efenant:s clai! that
-hat the evience prove is the un-illin"ness or
lac of intention to perfor! the se$ual act,
-hich is not ph%cholo"ical incapacit%, an
-hich can be achieve Ethrou"h proper
!otivation.E
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
22/34
REPU>IC O! T;E P;IIPPINES,
3%.
COURT O! APPEAS #') RORIDE
OA"IANO MOINA, re%o')e'%.
P
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
23/34
012 Roriel:s failure to run the househol an
hanle their finances.
Durin" the pre?trial on October '>, '667, the
follo-in" -ere stipulateB
'. That the parties herein -ere le"all% !arrieon
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
24/34
neglectb% the parties to the !arria"e of their
responsibilities an uties, but a defectin their
ps%cholo"ical nature -hich reners the!
incapable of perfor!in" such !arital
responsibilities an uties.E
"he Court/s Ruling
The petition is !eritorious.
In0eouel #antos vs. Court of Appeals8this
*ourt, speain" thru Mr. /ustice /ose *. Vitu",
rule that Eps%cholo"ical incapacit% shoul refer
to no less than a !ental 0nor ph%sical2 incapacit%
. . . an that 0t2here is harl% an% oubt that the
inten!ent of the la- has been to confine the
!eanin" of :ps%cholo"ical incapacit%: to the
!ost serious cases of personalit% isorers
clearl% e!onstrative of an utter insensitivit% orinabilit% to "ive !eanin" an si"nificance to the
!arria"e.
This ps%cholo"ic conition !ust e$ist at the
ti!e the !arria"e is celebrate.E *itin" Dr.
Feraro Veloso, a for!er presiin" &u"e of the
Metropolitan Marria"e Tribunal of the *atholic
/ustice Vitu" -rote that
Ethe ps%cholo"ical incapacit% !ust be
characteri#e b%
0a2 "ravit%,
0b2 &uriical anteceence, an
0c2 incurabilit%.E
On the other han, in the present case, there is
no clear sho-in" to us that the ps%cholo"ical
efect spoen of is an incapacit%.
I #e#r% o -% o be more o # )c-$4,E if
not outri"ht ErefusalE or Ene"lectE in the
perfor!ance of so!e !arital obli"ations.
Mere sho-in" of Eirreconciliable ifferencesE
an Econflictin" personalitiesE in no -ise
constitutes ps%cholo"ical incapacit%.
It is not enou"h to prove that the parties faile to
!eet their responsibilities an uties as !arrie
persons it is essential that the% !ust be sho-n
to be incapableof oin" so, ue to so!e
ps%cholo"ical 0nor ph%sical2 illness.
The evience auce b% responent !erel%
sho-e that she an her husban coul nor "et
alon" -ith each other. There ha been no
sho-in" of the "ravit% of the proble! neitherits &uriical anteceence nor its incurabilit%. The
e$pert testi!on% of Dr. Sison sho-e no
incurable ps%chiatric isorer but onl%
inco!patibilit%, not ps%cholo"ical incapacit%.
Dr. Sison testifieB4
*O9RT
L It is therefore the reco!!enation of the
ps%chiatrist base on %our finin"s that it is
better for the *ourt to annul 0sic2 the !arria"eG
< es, our Honor.
L There is no hope for the !arria"eG
< There is no hope, the !an is also livin" -ith
another -o!an.
L Is it also the stan of the ps%chiatrist that the
parties are ps%cholo"icall% unfit for each other
but the% are ps%cholo"icall% fit -ith other
partiesG
< es, our Honor.
L Neither are the% ps%cholo"icall% unfit for
their professionsG
< es, our Honor.
The *ourt has no !ore =uestions.
In the case of Re%nalo, there is no sho-in" that
his alle"e personalit% traits -ere constitutive of
ps%cholo"ical incapacit% e$istin" at the ti!e of
!arria"e celebration. Chile so!e effort -as
!ae to prove that there -as a failure to fulfillpre?nuptial i!pressions of Ethou"htfulness an
"entlenessE on Re%nalo:s part of bein"
Econservative, ho!el% an intelli"entE on the
part of Roriel, such failure of e$pectation is nor
inicative of anteceent ps%cholo"ical
incapacit%. If at all, it !erel% sho-s love:s
24
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
25/34
te!porar% blinness to the faults an ble!ishes
of the belove.
Durin" its eliberations, the *ourt ecie to "o
be%on !erel% rulin" on the facts of this case
vis%a%vise$istin" la- an &urispruence. In vie-
of the novelt% of
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
26/34
occasional e!otional outburstsE cannot be
accepte as rootcauses. The illness !ust be
sho-n as o-nri"ht incapacit% or inabilit%, nor a
refusal, ne"lect or ifficult%, !uch less ill -ill.
In other -ors, there is a natal or supervenin"
isablin" factor in the person, an averse
inte"ral ele!ent in the personalit% structure that
effectivel% incapacitates the person fro! reall%
acceptin" an thereb% co!pl%in" -ith the
obli"ations essential to !arria"e.
082 The essential !arital obli"ations !ust be
those e!brace b% ' of the
(a!il% *oe as re"ars the husban an -ife as
-ell as
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
27/34
>RENDA >. MARCOS,petitioner,
vs.
:ISON G. MARCOS, respondent.
D + * I S I O N
PANGANI>AN,J.:
Ps%cholo"ical incapacit%, as a "roun for
eclarin" the nullit% of a !arria"e, !a% be
establishe b% the totalit% of evience
presente. There is no re=uire!ent,
ho-ever, that the responent shoul be
e$a!ine b% a ph%sician or a ps%cholo"ist
as a conditio sine qua nonfor such
eclaration.
The *ase
)efore us is a Petition for Revie- on
Certiorariuner Rule 35 of the Rules of
*ourt, assailin" the /ul% 3, '664 Decision'
of the *ourt of
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
28/34
uner the Philippine 7 Dais% Street, Hulo
)liss, Manalu%on",a housin" unit -hich
she ac=uire fro! the )liss Develop!ent*orporation -hen she -as still sin"le.
E
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
29/34
abusive to the! 0+$h. 99, Recors, pp. 45?
'772.
EThe appellee sub!itte herself to
ps%cholo"ist Nativia
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
30/34
EI. Chether or not the Honorable
*ourt of
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
31/34
assu!in", or no-in" the!, coul
not have "iven vali assu!ption
thereof. 2 Interpretations "iven b% the
National
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
32/34
042 The trial court !ust orer the
prosecutin" attorne% or fiscal an the
Solicitor Feneral to appear as
counsel for the state. No ecision
shall be hane o-n unless the
Solicitor Feneral issues acertification, -hich -ill be =uote in
the ecision, briefl% statin" therein
his reasons for his a"ree!ent or
opposition, as the case !a% be, to the
petition. The Solicitor Feneral, alon"
-ith the prosecutin" attorne%, shall
sub!it to the court such certification
-ithin fifteen 0'52 a%s fro! the ate
the case is ee!e sub!itte for
resolution of the court. The SolicitorFeneral shall ischar"e the
e=uivalent function of the defensor
vinculiconte!plate uner *anon
'765.E'7
The "uielines incorporate the three basic
re=uire!ents earlier !anate b% the *ourt
in #antos v. Court of Appeals-''
E%4co$o/c#$ 'c##c4 m-% be
c#r#cerBe) b4
0a2 "ravit%
0b2 &uriical anteceence, an
0c2 incurabilit%.E
The fore"oin" "uielines o not re=uire that
a ph%sician e$a!ine the person to be
eclare ps%cholo"icall% incapacitate.
In fact, the root cause !a% be E!eicall% or
clinically ientifie.E Chat is i!portant is
the presence of evience that can ae=uatel%
establish the part%:spsychologicalconition.
(or inee, if the totalit% of evience
presente is enou"h to sustain a finin" of
ps%cholo"ical incapacit%, then actual
!eical e$a!ination of the person
concerne nee not be resorte to.
Main IssueB "otality of $vidence &resented
The !ain =uestion, then, is -hether the
totalit% of the evience presente in the
present case ?? incluin" the testi!onies of
petitioner, the co!!on chilren, petitioner:s
sister an the social -orer ?? -as enou"h to
sustain a finin" that responent -as
ps%cholo"icall% incapacitate.
:e r-$e ' e 'e/#3e.
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
33/34
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3 - 2
34/34