GRACE GARCIA V REDERICK RECIO

GR NO. 138322, OCT. 2, 2001

FACTS:
Rederck Recio, Filipino, was married to an Australian citizen named
Editha Samson on March 1, 1987 in Malabon, Rizal. On May 1989, a decree of divorce
was obtained and dissolved their marriage. The decree was issued by an Australian
family court
On Jan. 12, 1994, petitioner and respondent were married in Cabanatuan
City. Starting October 1995, they lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of
their marriage. While they were still im Australia, their conjugal assets were divided in
accordance with Statutory Declaration secured in Australia.
On March 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage on the ground of bigamy and claimed that she knew the marriage of
respondent with Editha Samson in 1997. Respondent averred that petitioner knows
about his marriage with Editha since 1993 and that he obtained a decree of divorce in
1989, therefore, capacitating him to remarry.
ISSUE:
WON, the decree of divorce submitted by Rederick Recio is admissible as
evidence to prove that he had legal capacity to remarry when he remarried Garcia and
absolving him of bigamy.
HELD:
The decree of divorce presented by an alien is valid and recognizable.
However, Recio dialed to show evidence to prove his legal capacity to remarry. The
decree was not authenticate by a consul or embassy of the country where it will be
used. Even after the divorce, the court may restrict marriages under some foreign
statute.
Thus, the court remands the case to the court a quo for the purpose of
receiving evidence which conclusively shows respondents legal capacity to marry
petitioner and failure to do so declares the parties marriage void on the ground of
bigamy.

REPUBLIC V TANYAG-SAN JOSE

GR NO. 168328, FEB. 28, 2007

FACTS:
Respondents Laila Tanyag-San Jose and Manolito San Jose were married
on June 12, 1988. Their marriage bore 2 children. For nine years, the couple stayed
with respondents parents. Manolito was jobless and was hooked to gambling and
drugs. Laila stood as the breadwinner of the family.
On August 20, 1998, Laila left Manolo and transferred to her parents
house. The following year, she filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
under Art. 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Dr. Nedy Tayag, a clinical psychologist who examined and conducted a
psychological interview with Laila, testified that Manolito is psychologically incapacitated
to perform his duties as a husband.
RTC denied the petition and an appeal was filed before the CA reversing
the decision of the RTC. Petitioner files a petition for review before the SC.
ISSUE:

WON, Manolito San Jose was proven to be psychologically incapacitated.

HELD:
NO. In the case, the findings and the testimony in court of Dr. Nedy Tayag
is merely hearsay. The doctor had no personal knowledge of the facts he testified to, as
these had been merely relayed to him by Laila. There was no other independent
evidence which will support a conclusion of psychological incapacity on the part of
Manolito. Manolitos condition or attitude has not been shown, however, to be a malady
or disorder rooted on some incapacitating psychological condition.

REPUBLIC V MOLINA
GR NO. 108763, FEB. 13,1997

FACTS:
The case at bar challenges the decision rendered by CA affirming the
marriage of respondent Roridel Molina and Reynaldo Molina void on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
Roridel and Reynaldo Molina were married in 1985, and bore one child.
After a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as a
husband and a father. He preferred spending time with his friends whom he squandered
his money. He also depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never
honest with his wife on their finances.
In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel which estrange their
relationship. Roridel quit her job in Manila and lived with her parents in Baguio.
Reynaldo left her and their child and abandoned them since then.
ISSUE:

WON, the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD:
NO, the marriage between the couple remains valid. What constitutes
psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations
which would not meet the essential marital responsibilities and duties due to some
psychological illness.

CONSUEGRA V GSIS
GR NO. L-28093, 37 SCRA 315

FACTS:
Jose Consuegra was employed as a shop foreman in the Office of District
Engineer in Surigao del Norte. When he was still alive, he contracted two marriages.
First was with Rosario Diaz where they had 2 children and the second marriage, which
was contracted in good faith, was with Basilia Berdin where they had 7 children.
When Consuegra died, his life insurance proceeds were paid for by Berdin
and her children who were the beneficiaries named in the policy. Since he was in the
government for almost 23 years, he was entitled to retirement insurance benefits, for
which no beneficiary was designated.
Both families filed their claims with the GSIS which ruled that one-half
share is entitled to Diaz and one-half share to Berdin and her children. And that Berdin
and her children are entitled to 1/16 equal shares.
Berdin filed at the Court of First Instance an appeal. CFI affirmed GSIS
decision.
ISSUE:

WON, CFIs decision to affirm the decision of GSIS correct.

HELD:
YES. Both families are entitled to half of the retirement benefits the
beneficiary named in the life insurance does not automatically become the beneficiary
of the retirement insurance. The life insurance and retirement insurance are two
separate and distinct systems of benefits paid out from two separate and distinct funds.
In case of failure to name a beneficiary in an insurance policy, the proceeds will accrue
to the estate of the insured. And when there exists two marriages, each family will be
entitled to one-half of the estate.