P10 Pesca v.

Pesca AUTHOR: Luna

GR No. 136921 NOTES:
April 17, 2001] Lorna Guillen Pesca (Petitioner) Female v. Zosimo a. Pesca
TOPIC: Retroactivity of laws (Respondent) Male
PONENTE: Escolin, J.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Gross and inexcusable ignorance of the law may not be the basis of good faith, but possible,
excusable ignorance may be such basis.
Emergency Recit: Petitioner and respondent were married. Into the relationship, they had 4 children. Eventually the
marriage turned sour and the man’s “true colors” showed itself. He beats his wife and children. He even threatened his
wife’s life in the presence of his own children. The wife wanted to annul the marriage through Art 36 of the FC,
Psychology Incapacitated but the SC ruled that Psychological Incapacity does not equate to extremely low intelligence,
immaturity, and like circumstance. Marriage STIL VALID.
FACTS:

 Lorna and Zosimo met while on board and inter-island vessel.

 They got married and initially did not elope since petitioner was a college student and the other was a seaman
but eventually did when they were able to build their own house in Caloocan City.
 The union begot 4 children
 Eventually into the marriage, “True colors” of Zosimo was apparent.
 These are habitual drinking, cruelty and violence. One time respondent chased petitioner with a loaded
shotgun and threatened to kill her in the presence of her children because she wanted him to lessen his
drinking habit.
 The mother and children left the conjugal home only to return two months after, hoping that things will
change but it didn’t. After an hour of beating petitioner, Lorna and the children finally decided to leave for
good.
 Lorna submitted herself for medical examination that diagnosed her injuries as contusions and abrasions. She
used this as evidence to file a complaint in Brgy. authorities and a case was filed respondent for slight physical
injuries.
 She invoke Art. 36 (Psychological incapacity) to declare her marriage null and void
 Respondent denied that he was psychologically incapacitated.
 RTC declared the marriage void ab initio. CA Reversed due to the lack of evidence of Psychological Incapacity
according to the cases of Santos and Molina.
 Petitioner invoked the ruling in Santos and Molina case should only be a guide and have no retroactive
application and warrant further proceedings and not dismissal.

ISSUE: W/N Santos and Molina have retroactive effect in the case at bar in terms of identifying the meaning of
Psychological Incapacity?
HELD: Yes. Court decisions form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
RATIO:

The case of Santos shed light in the meaning of the phrase “Psychological Incapacity” and the case of Molina
strengthened such meaning. This case should be used to not overlap psychological incapacity to extremely low
intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstance. Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than Mental NOT
Physical incapacity. No doubt that the two cases denote serious personality disorders, Petitioner assailing emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility does NOT equate to psychological incapacity. Petition DENIED. Marriage is valid and
subsisting.