Republic V.

Quintaro-Hamano May 20, 2004 428 Scra 735

Facts: On June 17, 1996, respondent Lotita Quintaro-Hamano filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national on the ground of psychological incapacity. Respondent alleged that in October 1986, she gave birth to a child and they got married here in the Philippines. Unknown to respondent, Toshio was psychological incapacity to assume marital obligation, which incapacity become manifest only after marriage. One month after their marriage Toshio return to Japan. Toshio stopped giving financial support and did not bother to visit the respondent and their child when he came to the Philippines. Issue: Whether the respondent was able to prove psychological incapacity of Toshio with the guidelines laid down in the Molina case? Ruling: The mere abandonment of Toshio of his family and his insensitivity to them did not automatically constitute psychological incapacity. His behavior towards them indicates his simple inadequacy in the personality disorder part of spouse failing short of responsible expectation. The respondent failed to prove any severe and incurable personality disorder on the part of Toshio, in accordance with the guidelines set in Molina. The root cause of psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedent and incurability. The totality of evidence presented fall short to prove psychological incapacity. We find no distinction between the alien spouse and a Filipino. The medical and clinical rules to identified psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior in general, hence, the norms for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality.

Barcelona V. CA and Tadeo bengzon September 24, 2003 GR No. 130087 Facts: On March 29, 1995 respondent Tadeo Bengzon filed a petition for annulment of marriage against Diana Barcelona. On May 9, 1995 Tadeo filed a motion to withdraw petition on which the trial court granted. On July 1995, Tadeo filed anew petition for annulment of marriage. Diana filed a motion to dismiss based on two grounds; failure to state a cause of action and forum shopping. The court denied the motion. The case was elevated to the court of appeals. The court of appeals held that there was no violation of forum shopping and there is a cause of action. Issue: Whether allegations of second petition for annulment of marriage sufficiently state of cause of action; whether or not there is violation of forum shopping? Ruling: The court finds that the second petition sufficiently alleges a cause of action. The petition alleged that the respondent and petitioner were legally married and the union begot five children and he further alleges that the petitioner was psychological incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage and such incapacity subsist up to the present time. The second petition states ultimate a fact on which respondent alleges the cause of action in accordance with the Sec 1, Rule 8 of the rules of court. The first petition was dismissed without prejudice at the instance of the respondent Tadeo, clearly, there is no litis pendencia since the respondent Tadeo had already withdrawn and caused the dismissal of the first petition, when he subsequently filed the second petition, neither is there res judicata because the dismissal order was not decision on merits but dismissal without prejudice.

Choa V. Choa November 26, 2002 392 Scra 641

Facts: Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa were married on March 15, 1981. In 1993, Alfonso filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of Leni alleged psychological incapacity. Alfonso claimed that the filing be Leni of series of charges against him is proof of her psychological incapacity. These charges include complaints for perjury, false testimony, concubine and deportation. He contended that this is very abnormal for a wife, instead of protecting the name and integrity of her husband, had acted to the contrary. He also complained about her lack of attention to their children, immaturity and lack of procreative sexuality. Alfonso presented at the trial an expert witness to testify to prove the psychological incapacity of Leni. When Alfonso rested his case, Leni filed a demurrer to evidence. The trial court denied demurrer. Alfonso went up to the CA which upheld the trial court, hence, this petition. Issue: Did Alfonso make out a case of psychological incapacity? Ruling: No, he did not. The evidence presented by Alfonso is grossly insufficient to support a finding of psychological incapacity. It is the height of absurdity and inequality to condemn her as psychological incapacitated to fulfil her marital obligations simply because she filed cases against him. Even if taken as true, the alleged lack of attention to their children, immaturity and lack of intention of procreate sexually, singly or collectively, does not constitute psychological incapacity. The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that he and his wife could not get along with each other. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personality in no wise constitute psychological incapacity. Republic V. CA and Molina February 13, 1997 240 Scra 198

Facts:

In 1990 respondent Roridel Molina Filed petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. The petition alleged that Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as husband father, as a result habitually quarrel with his wife. In his, answer Reynaldo contended that their misunderstanding and frequent quarrels were due to Roridels strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends, her refusal to perform household chores and her failure to handle their finances. The respondent presented evidence consisted of her own testimony and that of her friends and social worker and a psychiatrist. The RTC ruled in favour of her, hence, this petition. Issue: Whether the court made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase psychological incapacity as provided under the art 36 of the family code and made an incorrect application thereof to the facts of the case, adding that appealed decision tended to establish in effect the most liberal divorce procedure in the world which is anathema to our culture? Ruling: There is no showing that the alleged personality traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the time of the marriage celebration. While some effort was made to prove that there as failure to fulfil pre-nuptial impression of thoughtfulness and gentleness on the part of Reynaldos part of being conservative, homely and intelligent on the part of Roridel, such failure of expectation is not indicative of antecedent psychological incapacity. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Such incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent. Such incapacity may be absolute or relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against every one of the same sex. Such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marital obligations. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligation of marriage. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability nor a refusal, neglect, or difficulty, must less ill will. In other words, there is a natal 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 obligation essential to marriage.

The assailed decision is reversed and set aside. The marriage of Roridel to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.

Morigo V. People February 6, 2004 422 Scra 376

Facts: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete, both agreed to get married, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at Pilar, Bohol. On September 8, 1990 Lucia reported back to Canada. In 1991 Lucia filed with the Ontario Court a petition for divorce against the appellant, which was granted by the court. In 1992, Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago at Tagbilaran City, Bohol. On 1993 Morigo filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of maaariage in RTC of Bohol on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place. Morigo was charged with Bigamy and the trial court rendered a decision convicting him of the crime of bigamy. Issue: Whether the marriage without marriage ceremony is valid; whether the accused is guilty of the crime of bigamy? Ruling: The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony between Lucio and Lucia is solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial court held that the marriage is void ab initio. This simply puts that there was no marriage to begin with, and such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. In other words, for all intend and purposes, reckoned from the date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date of celebration of the first marriage, the accused was under the law, never married. The first element of the crime of bigamy, is that the accused must have been legally married, but in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia barrete.