Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Antonio vs Reyes
Antonio vs. Reyes
GR No. 155800, March 10, 2006
FACTS:
Leonilo Antonio, 26 years of age, and Marie Ivonne Reyes, 36
years of age met in 1989. Barely a year after their first
meeting, they got married at Manila City Hall and then a
subsequent church wedding at Pasig in December 1990. A
child was born but died 5 months later. Reyes persistently lied
about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income,
educational attainment and other events or things. She even
did not conceal bearing an illegitimate child, which she
represented to her husband as adopted child of their family.
They were separated in August 1991 and after attempt for
reconciliation, he finally left her for good in November 1991.
Petitioner then filed in 1993 a petition to have his marriage
MENDOZA, J.:
This petition seeks to set aside the November 30,
2004 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed
the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan
City (RTC) declaring the marriage between petitioner Silvino
A. Ligeralde (Silvino) and private respondent May Ascension
A. Patalinghug (May) null and void.
Silvino and May got married on October 3,
1984. They were blessed with four children. Silvino claimed
that, during their marriage, he observed that May had several
manifestations of a negative marital behavior. He described
her as immature, irresponsible and carefree. Her infidelity,
negligence and nocturnal activities, he claimed, characterized
their marital relations.
Sometime in September 1995, May arrived home
at 4:00 oclock in the morning. Her excuse was that she had
watched a video program in a neighboring town, but admitted
later to have slept with her Palestinian boyfriend in a
hotel. Silvino tried to persuade her to be conscientious of her
duties as wife and mother. His pleas were ignored. His
persuasions would often lead to altercations or physical
violence.
In the midst of these, Silvinos deep love for her, the
thought of saving their marriage for the sake of their children,
and the commitment of May to reform dissuaded him from
separating from her. He still wanted to reconcile with her.
The couple started a new life. A few months after,
however, he realized that their marriage was hopeless. May
was back again to her old ways. This was demonstrated when
Silvino arrived home one day and learned that she was
nowhere to be found. He searched for her and found her in a
nearby apartment drinking beer with a male lover.
Later, May confessed that she had no more love for
him. They then lived separately.
SILVINO A. LIGERALDE,
Petitioner,
G.R. NO.
With Mays irresponsible, immature and immoral
behavior, Silvino came to believe that she is psychologically
Present:incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage.
CORONA,
VELASCO, JR.,Prior to the filing of the complaint, Silvino referred
- versus NACHURA,
the matter to Dr. Tina Nicdao-Basilio for psychological
PERALTA,
and
evaluation.
The psychologist certified that May was
MENDOZA,
psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital
obligations; that the incapacity started when she was still
young and became manifest after marriage; and that the same
MAY ASCENSION A.
was serious and incurable.[3]
PATALINGHUG and the
Promulgated:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
On October 22, 1999, the RTC declared the marriage
Respondents.
April 15,
of2010
Silvino and May null and void. Its findings were based on
x
the Psychological Evaluation Report of Dr. Tina Nicdao--------------------------------------------------------------------------Basilio.
--------------------x
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision. It
DECISION
ruled that private respondents alleged sexual infidelity,
2.
3.
[by]
SECOND DIVISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision[1] of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 01 July
2003, reversing the decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 102, Quezon City, dated 31 January 2001,
which dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage filed by respondent herein Judge Manuel Siayngco
(respondent Manuel).
Petitioner Juanita Carating-Siayngco (Petitioner Juanita)
and respondent Manuel were married at civil rites on 27 June
1973 and before the Catholic Church on 11 August 1973. After
discovering that they could not have a child of their own, the
couple decided to adopt a baby boy in 1977, who they named
Jeremy.
On 25 September 1997, or after twenty-four (24) years of
married life together, respondent Manuel filed for the
declaration of its nullity on the ground of psychological
incapacity of petitioner Juanita. He alleged that all throughout
their marriage, his wife exhibited an over domineering and
selfish attitude towards him which was exacerbated by her
extremely volatile and bellicose nature; that she incessantly
complained about almost everything and anyone connected
with him like his elderly parents, the staff in his office and
anything not of her liking like the physical arrangement,
tables, chairs, wastebaskets in his office and with other trivial
matters; that she showed no respect or regard at all for the
prestige and high position of his office as judge of the
Municipal Trial Court; that she would yell and scream at him
and throw objects around the house within the hearing of their
neighbors; that she cared even less about his professional
advancement as she did not even give him moral support and
encouragement; that her psychological incapacity arose before
marriage, rooted in her deep-seated resentment and
vindictiveness for what she perceived as lack of love and
appreciation from her own parents since childhood and that
such incapacity is permanent and incurable and, even if
treatment could be attempted, it will involve time and expense
beyond the emotional and physical capacity of the parties; and
that he endured and suffered through his turbulent and loveless
marriage to her for twenty-two (22) years.
In her Answer, petitioner Juanita alleged that respondent
Manuel is still living with her at their conjugal home in
Malolos, Bulacan; that he invented malicious stories against
her so that he could be free to marry his paramour; that she is
a loving wife and mother; that it was respondent Manuel who
was remiss in his marital and family obligations; that she
supported respondent Manuel in all his endeavors despite his
philandering; that she was raised in a real happy family and
had a happy childhood contrary to what was stated in the
complaint.
In the pre-trial order,[3] the parties only stipulated on the
following:
1. That they were married on 27 June 1973;
JUANITA
CARATING-SIAYNGCO, petitioner
vs. MANUEL SIAYNGCO, respondent.
DECISION
definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who
view the relationship with love amore gignit amorem, sacrifice
and a continuing commitment to compromise conscious of its
value as a sublime social institution (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court
of Appeals, 266 SCRA 324).
This court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in
which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of
unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can
do no less, but reverse and set aside the decision of the lower
court. Plaintiff Manuel is entitled to have his marriage
declared a nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity,
not only of defendant but also of himself.[40]
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred
I. IN ITS FINDINGS THAT PETITIONER
JUANITA
IS
PSYCHOLOGICALLY
INCAPACITATED
II.
such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such
moment, or prior thereto.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse,
not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those
not related to marriage like the exercise of a profession or
employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to
cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to
procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential
obligation of marriage.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as
root causes. The illness must be shown as downright
incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
element in the personality structure that effectively
incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby
complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced
by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such noncomplied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the
petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the
decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given
great respect by our courts.[45]
With the foregoing pronouncements as compass, we now
resolve the issue of whether or not the totality of evidence
presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity against petitioner Juanita and/or respondent
Manuel.
4124 that would likewise, but for different reasons, render the
marriage void ab initio, or Article 4525 that would make the
marriage merely voidable, or Article 55 that could justify a
petition for legal separation. Care must be observed so that
these various circumstances are not applied so
indiscriminately as if the law were indifferent on the
matter.26 Article 36 should not to be confused with a divorce
law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor
manifest themselves.27 Neither it is to be equated 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, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the
like.28
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion for
reconsideration of the Resolution dated June 9, 2004 denying
the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner
to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any
reversible error, is DENIED WITH FINALITY.
SO ORDERED.
Anaya vs Palaroan
Anaya vs. Palaroan
36 SCRA 97
FACTS:
Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in 1953.
Palaroan filed an action for annulment of the marriage in 1954
on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and
intimidation. The complaint was dismissed and upheld the
validity of the marriage and granting Auroras counterclaim.
While the amount of counterclaim was being negotiated,
Fernando divulged to her that several months prior to their
marriage, he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative
of his. According to her, the non-divulgement to her of such
pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her consent.
She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando
on such ground.
Aquino vs Delizo
Aquino vs. Delizo
109 Phil 21
FACTS: