Kareen O.

Raguindin Legal Research and Thesis Writing CASE BRIEFING AND SYNTHESIS OF CASES
Case Brief: Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al G.R. No. 101083 Facts:

07/06/2013 M7

The petitioners herein are all minors duly represented by their parents, together with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc., seeking an instant civil action for certiorari for the decisions rendered by the respondent Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers class suit and the minors suing on behalf of their generation as well as generation yet unborn upon their right to a balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "intergenerational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice. Consequently, it prayed for judgment be rendered ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country which is the host of numerous adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damage of natural resources. The Judge decision granted the motion to dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government. Further, it contended that granting the said petition would result to violation of the non impairment of obligations of the Timber Licensing Agreement.

Issues:
Whether or not the plaintiffs have no cause of action. Whether or not the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question Whether or not the cancellation of TLAs would result to violations of the non impairment clause.

Ruling:
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, we find the statements to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law which carries with it a correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. Thus, the right of the petitioners and all those they represent to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to

protect and advance the said right. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. Under Article VIII, section 1 of the constitution it states that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Cancelation of the TLAs would not violate the law on non impairment of obligations and contracts. A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. Petition is hereby granted, and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.

Synthesis of Cases:

The Supreme Court has decided five cases on psychological incapacity as a ground for nullification of marriage. In the case of Renne Enrique Bier vs Ma. Lourdes Bier and the Republic of the Philippines, GR No. 173294, the Supreme Court ruled that the change in respondent's feelings towards petitioner could hardly describe as a psychological illness. Habitual alcoholism, chain-smoking, failure or refusal to meet one's duties and responsibilities as a married person and eventual abandonment of a spouse do not suffice to nullify a marriage on the basis of psychological incapacity, if not shown to be due to some psychological (as opposed to physical) illness. In Rosa Yap Paras vs Justo J. Paras, GR No. 147824, the Supreme Court ruled reiterated that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. While this Court is convinced that the charges hurled against the respondent such as sexual infidelity, falsification of her signature, abandonment and inadequate support of children, are true, nonetheless, there is nothing in the records showing that they were caused by a psychological disorder on his part. The totality of the evidence is not sufficient to show psychologically incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations. There is no evidence that "defects" were present at the inception of the marriage. His "defects" surfaced only in the latter years when these events took place; their two children died; he lost in the election; he failed in his business ventures and law practice; and felt the

disdain of his wife and her family. Surely, these circumstances explain why Rosa filed the present case only after almost 30 years of their marriage. Equally important is that records fail to indicate that the respondents "defects" are incurable or grave. In Lester Benjamin S. Halili vs Chona M. Santos Halili and the Republic of the Philippines, the Supreme Court ruled that it has been sufficiently established that petitioner had a psychological condition that was grave and incurable and had a deeply rooted cause. This Court, recognized that individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually have long-term concerns, and thus therapy may be long-term. Particularly, personality disorders are "long-standing, inflexible ways of behaving that are not so much severe mental disorders as dysfunctional styles of living. These disorders affect all areas of functioning and, beginning in childhood or adolescence, create problems for those who display them and for others." From the foregoing, it has been shown that petitioner is indeed suffering from psychological incapacity that effectively renders him unable to perform the essential obligations of marriage. Accordingly, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is declared null and void. In the case of Nilda V. Navales vs Reynaldo Navales, GR No. 167523, while it is true that the Court relies heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality, and that there is no requirement that the defendant spouse be personally examined by a physician or psychologist before the nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity may be declared, still, the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, its incapacitating nature fully explained, and said incapacity established by the totality of the evidence presented during trial. The Court finds that the psychological report presented in this case is insufficient to establish the psychological incapacity. In Republic of the Philippines vs Lynnette Cabantug- Baguio, GR No. 171042, the Supreme Court ruled that while the examination by a physician of a person in order to declare him/her psychological incapacitated is not required, the root cause thereof must be "medically or clinically identified." There must thus be evidence to adequately establish the same. There is none such in the case at bar, however. The Constitution sets out a policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Marriage, an inviolable institution protected by the State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. It cannot be declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity in light of the insufficient evidence presented.