Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the failure of the wife to
return home or to communicate with her husband for more
than five years does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Petition denied.
Case Brief No. 2: Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 324
G.R. No. 119190, 16 January 1997 (2nd Division)
Issue; Whether or not Chi Ming Tsoi’s failure top have sexual
intercourse with his wife, Gina, form the time of the marriage
until the time of their separation a ground for psychological
incapacity.
Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the senseless and
protracted refusal of the husband to have sexual intercourse
to procreate children, an essential marital obligation, form
the time of the marriage up to the their separation ten
months later is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Judgment affirmed.
Case Brief No. 3: Republic vs. CA and Molina, 268 SCRA 198
G.R. no. 108763, 13 February 1997
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the aforementioned acts
do not by themselves constitute grounds for psychological
incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It
must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a
disordered personality which make Mario completely unable
to discharge his essential marital obligations, and not merely
due to his youth and self-conscious feelings of being
handsome.
Judgment affirmed.
Case Brief no. 5: Marcos vs. Marcos
G.R. No. 136490, 19 October 2000 (3rd Division)
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Erlinda failed to comply with
the evidentiary requirements under the guidelines set in the
two cases of Santos and Molina, as she failed to present a
psychiatrist or medical doctor to testify; the allegation that
Avelino is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently proven;
and the investigating prosecutor was not given an
opportunity to present converting evidences.
Title : People vs. Pringas, 531 SCRA 828 (G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007)
Facts : On 7 September 1975, Erlinda Matias and Avelino Dagdag got married
and had two children. In 1990, Erlinda filed a petition for nullity of
marriage for psychological incapacity. She alleged that Avelino would
often disappear for months, indulge in drinking sprees with friends, and
inflict physical injuries on her. She also learned that Avelino was
imprisoned but escaped from jail. During the court hearing, Virginia
Dagdag, Erlinda’s sister-in-law, testified the veracity of Erlinda’s
allegations. The RTC-Olongapo City declared the marriage null and void,
which was affirmed by the court of Appeals.
Held : The Supreme Court ruled that Erlinda failed to comply with the
evidentiary requirements under the guidelines set in the two cases of
Santos and Molina, as she failed to present a psychiatrist or medical
doctor to testify; the allegation that Avelino is a fugitive from justice was
not sufficiently proven; and the investigating prosecutor was not given an
opportunity to present converting evidences.