Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

ALCAZAR v ALCAZAR

13 OCTOBER 2009
Ponente: CHICO-NAZARIO, J
Topic: EFFECT OF PHYSICAL INCAPACITY/IMPOTENCE

Facts:
October 2000- Alcazars got married and went to live with husbands family for 5
days
Then newlyweds then went to Manila but the husband did not live with petitioner in
latters house in Tondo,Manila
October 23, 2000 respondent (husband) went to Riyadh to work and while there,
he did not communicate with his wife (by phone or by letter). Petitioner tried to call
5 times but failed
1 year and a half later, a co-teacher had informed the petitioner (wife) that the
respondent was about to come home to the Philippines
Husband did not go to petitioners house but instead went to live with his parents
without informing his wife since his arrival in March 2002
November 18. 2002- Petitioner filed to conduct an investigation pursuant of art 48
of the Family code. Results showed that there was no collusion between the two
parties and thus recommended a full blown trial
Respondent did not file an answer
Petitioner presented 3 witnesses (herself, her mother [cabungan] and a clinical
psychologist [Tayag]
Petitioner elaborated on the allegations of her complaint
Her mother corroborted her testimony
Tayag Diagnosed respondent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (without
being able to examine husband, he had to rely on wifes claims)
RTC ruled that the acts of not communicated and not living with the wife were not
acts that proved his psychological incapacity. Denied. CA affirms this
As a last ditch effort in the SC, petitioner pleads abandonment by and sexual
infidelity of the respondent. A neighbor in Mindoro informed her that her husband
had been residing with another woman named Sally
FC Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. (As amended
by Executive Order 227)
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the
marriage:(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the
other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order
the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to
prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.

Issues:
W/N as defined by the law and jurisprudence, respondent is psychologically
incapable to perform the essential marital obligations
Decision: SC affirms CA decision

Held

Ratio

There is NO evidence

that shows that the


husband in physically
incapable of
consummating their
marriage
There is no compelling
proof of psychological

incapacity

FC Article 45 (5) refers to the lack of power to copulate /have sex

psychological incapacity must be clinically identified


it must be proven to be existing during the time of the
celebration of the marriage
it must be shown to be incurable
All of these requisites were not present in the case

the doctor presented did not help her case for he was not
able to examine the patient
Last ditch effort is not sexual infidelity does not constitute psychological incapacity
enough to void the
marriage