Republic of the Philippines: Supreme Court Assignment

Republic of the Philippines: Supreme Court Assignment Words: 2314

Marco’s, on the other hand, Joined the Women’s Auxiliary Corps under the Philippine Republic of the Philippines: Supreme Court By Benedictine the military service. “They first met sometime in 1980 when both of them were assigned at the Malignant Palace, she as an escort of Mime Marco’s and he as a Presidential Guard of President Ferdinand Marco’s. Through telephone conversations, hey became acquainted and eventually became sweethearts. “After their marriage on September 6, 1982, they resided at No. 702 Daisy Street, Hullo Bliss, Manhandling, a housing unit which she acquired from the Bliss Development Corporation when she was still single. “After the downfall of President Marco’s, he left the military service in 1987 and then engaged in different business ventures that did not however prosper. As a wife, she always urged him to look for work so that their children would see him, instead of her, as the head of the family and a good provider. Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employment, they would often quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and beat her.

He would even force her to have sex with him despite her weariness. He would also inflict physical harm on their children for a slight mistake and was so severe in the way he chastised them. Thus, for several times during their cohabitation, he would leave their house. In 1992, they were already living separately. “All the while, she was engrossed in the business of selling “magic lulling” and chickens. While she was still in the military, she would first make deliveries early in he morning before going to Malignant. When she was discharged from the military service, she concentrated on her business.

Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!

order now

Then, she became a supplier in the Armed Forces of the Philippines until she was able to put up a trading and construction company, INS News Trading and Construction Development Corporation. “The ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ took place on October 16, 1994, when they had a bitter quarrel. As they were already living separately, she did not want him to stay in their house anymore. On that day, when she saw him in their house, she was so angry that she lambasted him. He then turned violent, inflicting physical harm on her and even on her mother who came to her aid.

The following day, October 17, 1994, she and their children left the house and sought refuge in her sister’s house. “On October 19, 1994, she submitted herself [to] medical examination at the Manhandling Medical Center where her injuries were diagnosed as contusions (Ex.. G, Records, 153). “Sometime in August 1995, she together with her two sisters and driver, went to him at the Bliss unit in Manhandling to look for their missing child, Nick. Upon seeing them, he got mad. After knowing the reason for their unexpected presence, he ran after them with a samurai and even [beat] her driver. At the time of the filing of this case, she and their children were renting a house in Camellia, Appearance, while the appellant was residing at the Bliss unit in Manhandling. “In the case study conducted by Social Worker Sonic C. Milan, the children described their father as cruel and physically abusive to them (Ex.. I-JOY, Records, up. 85-100). “The appellate submitted herself to psychologist Antiviral A. Dana, Ph. D. , for psychological evaluation (Ex.. Y, Records, up. 207-216), while the appellant on the other hand, did not. The court a quo found the appellant to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations mainly because of his failure to find work to support his family and his violent attitude towards appellate and their children, xx x. “3 Ruling of the Court of Appeals Reversing the ROTC, the CA held that psychological incapacity had not been “Essential in a petition for annulment is the allegation of the root cause of the spouse’s psychological incapacity which should also be medically or clinically identified, sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision.

The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage and shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. It must also be grave enough to bring about the disability of the parties to assume the essential obligations of marriage as set forth in Articles 68 to 71 and Articles 220 to 225 of the Family Code and such non-complied marital obligations must similarly be alleged in the petition, established by evidence and explained in the decision. “In the case before us, the appellant was not subjected to any psychological or psychiatric evaluation.

The psychological findings about the appellant by psychiatrist Antiviral Dana were based only on the interviews conducted with the appellate. Expert evidence by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists is essential if only to prove that the parties were or any one of them was mentally or psychically ill to be truly instinctive of the marital obligations he or she was assuming, or as would make him or her xx unable to assume them. In fact, he offered testimonial evidence to how that he [was] not psychologically incapacitated.

The root cause of his supposed incapacity was not alleged in the petition, nor medically or clinically identified as a psychological illness or sufficiently proven by an expert. Similarly, there is no evidence at all that would show that the appellant was suffering from an incapacity which [was] psychological or mental – not physical to the extent that he could not have known the obligations he was assuming: that the incapacity [was] grave, ha[d] preceded the marriage and [was] incurable. “4 Hence, this Petition. 5

Issues In her Memorandum,6 petitioner presents for this Court’s consideration the following issues: “l. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals could set aside the findings by the Regional Trial Court of psychological incapacity of a respondent in a Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage simply because the respondent did not subject himself to psychological evaluation. II. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented and the demeanor of all the witnesses should be the basis of the determination of the merits of the Petition. “7 The Court’s Ruling

We agree with petitioner that the personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of the evidence she presented does not show such incapacity. Preliminary Issue: Need for Personal Medical Examination Petitioner contends that the testimonies and the results of various tests that were submitted to determine respondent’s psychological incapacity to perform the obligations of marriage should not have been brushed aside by the Court of Appeals, simply because respondent had not taken those tests himself.

Petitioner adds that the CA should have realized that under the circumstances, she had no choice but to rely on other sources of information in order to determine the psychological capacity of respondent, who had refused to submit himself to such tests. In Republic v. CA and Moline,8 the guidelines governing the application and the interpretation of psychological incapacity referred to in Article 36 of the Family Coded were laid marriage belongs to the plaintiff.

Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it ‘as the foundation of the nation. ‘ It decrees marriage as legally ‘inviolable,’ thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be ‘protected’ by the state. Xx xx 2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof.

Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle possessed genesis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. 3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at ‘the time of the celebration’ of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their ‘l do’s. The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at 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 insurability 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 not be psychologically capacitate to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage. ) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, ‘mild choreographically 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 arraign. 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 non- complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. X x X (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.

The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defenses fundamentalist’s under Canon 1095. 10 The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals:al “psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity (b) Juridical antecedence, and (c) insurability. The foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be “medically or clinically identified. ” What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. For indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.

Main Issue: Totality of Evidence Presented The main question, then, is whether the totality of the evidence presented in the present case including the testimonies of petitioner, the common children, petitioner’s sister and the social worker was enough to sustain a finding that respondent was psychologically incapacitated. We rule in the negative. Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to he family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part.

There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his Job and was not gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral support, and even left the family home. Thus, is alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the inception of the marriage.

Equally important, there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. Lipid Article 36 of the Family Code, we stress, is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of wariness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.

How to cite this assignment

Choose cite format:
Republic of the Philippines: Supreme Court Assignment. (2019, Jun 20). Retrieved December 3, 2021, from