Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
#
4
Republic
vs
CA
and
Castro
FACTS:
Angelina
Castro,
with
her
parents
unaware,
contracted
a
civil
marriage
with
Edwin
Cardenas.
They
did
not
immediately
live
together
and
it
was
only
upon
Castro
found
out
that
she
was
pregnant
that
they
decided
to
live
together
wherein
the
said
cohabitation
lasted
for
only
4
months.
Thereafter,
they
parted
ways
and
Castro
gave
birth
that
was
adopted
by
her
brother
with
the
consent
of
Cardenas.
The
baby
was
brought
in
the
US
and
in
Castro’s
earnest
desire
to
follow
her
daughter
wanted
to
put
in
order
her
marital
status
before
leaving
for
US.
She
filed
a
petition
seeking
a
declaration
for
the
nullity
of
her
marriage.
Her
lawyer
then
found
out
that
there
was
no
marriage
license
issued
prior
to
the
celebration
of
their
marriage
proven
by
the
certification
issued
by
the
Civil
Registrar
of
Pasig.
HELD:
The
court
affirmed
the
decision
of
CA
that
the
certification
issued
by
the
Civil
Registrar
unaccompanied
by
any
circumstances
of
suspicion
sufficiently
prove
that
the
office
did
not
issue
a
marriage
license
to
the
contracting
parties.
Albeit
the
fact
that
the
testimony
of
Castro
is
not
supported
by
any
other
witnesses
is
not
a
ground
to
deny
her
petition
because
of
the
peculiar
circumstances
of
her
case.
Furthermore,
Cardenas
was
duly
served
with
notice
of
the
proceedings,
which
he
chose
to
ignore.
Under
the
circumstances
of
the
case,
the
documentary
and
testimonial
evidence
presented
by
private
respondent
Castro
sufficiently
established
the
absence
of
the
subject
marriage
license.
Case
#
5
On
January
12,
1994,
Rederick
married
Grace
J.
Garcia
where
it
was
solemnized
at
Our
lady
of
Perpetual
Help
Church,
Cabanatuan
City.
Since
October
22,
1995,
the
couple
lived
separately
without
prior
judicial
dissolution
of
their
marriage.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
while
they
were
still
in
Australia,
their
conjugal
assets
were
divided
on
May
16,
1996,
in
accordance
with
their
Statutory
Declarations
secured
in
Australia.
Grace
filed
a
Complaint
for
Declaration
of
Nullity
of
Marriage
on
the
ground
of
bigamy
on
March
3,
1998,
claiming
that
she
learned
only
in
November
1997,
Rederick’s
marriage
with
Editha
Samson.
ISSUE:
WON
the
decree
of
divorce
submitted
by
Rederick
Recio
is
admissible
as
evidence
to
prove
his
legal
capacity
to
marry
petitioner
and
absolved
him
of
bigamy.
HELD:
The
nullity
of
Rederick’s
marriage
with
Editha
as
shown
by
the
divorce
decree
issued
was
valid
and
recognized
in
the
Philippines
since
the
respondent
is
a
naturalized
Australian.
However,
there
is
absolutely
no
evidence
that
proves
respondent’s
legal
capacity
to
marry
petitioner
though
the
former
presented
a
divorce
decree.
The
said
decree,
being
a
foreign
document
was
inadmissible
to
court
as
evidence
primarily
because
it
was
not
authenticated
by
the
consul/
embassy
of
the
country
where
it
will
be
used.
Under
Sections
24
and
25
of
Rule
132,
a
writing
or
document
may
be
proven
as
a
public
or
official
record
of
a
foreign
country
by
either:
Thus,
the
Supreme
Court
remands
the
case
to
the
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Cabanatuan
City
to
receive
or
trial
evidence
that
will
conclusively
prove
respondent’s
legal
capacity
to
marry
petitioner
and
thus
free
him
on
the
ground
of
bigamy.
Case
#
19
Facts:
On
May
13,
1992,
Teofilo
died
intestate.
He
was
survived
by
respondents
Felicidad
and
their
son,
Teofilo
Carlos
II
(Teofilo
II).of
respondent
Felicidad
and
co-‐respondent,
Teofilo
II.
Petitioner
and
respondent
entered
into
compromised
agreements
to
divide
the
land
equally.
In
August
1995,
petitioner
filed
an
action
with
the
following
causes:
(a)
declaration
of
nullity
of
marriage;
(b)
status
of
a
child;
(c)
recovery
of
property;
(d)
reconveyance;
and
(e)
sum
of
money
and
damages.
In
his
complaint,
petitioner
asserted
that
the
marriage
between
his
late
brother
Teofilo
and
respondent
Felicidad
was
a
nullity
in
view
of
the
absence
of
the
required
marriage
license.
He
likewise
maintained
that
his
deceased
brother
was
neither
the
natural
nor
the
adoptive
father
of
respondent
Teofilo
Carlos
II.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
brother
of
one
of
the
spouse
has
a
legal
standing
in
a
declaration
of
nullity
case.
Case
#
20
Suntay
vs.
Suntay
GR
No.
132524
December
29,
1998
FACTS:
Petitioner
Federico
is
the
oppositor
to
respondent
Isabel’s
Petition
for
Letters
of
Administration
over
the
estate
of
Cristina
A.
Suntay
who
had
died
without
leaving
a
will.
The
decedent
is
the
wife
of
Federico
and
the
grandmother
of
Isabel.
Isabel’s
father
Emilio,
had
predeceased
his
mother
Cristina.
The
marriage
of
Isabel’s
parents
had
previously
been
decalred
by
the
CFI
as
“null
and
void.”
Federico
anchors
his
oppostion
on
this
fact,
alleging
based
on
Art.
992
of
the
CC,
that
Isabel
has
no
right
to
succeed
by
right
of
representation
as
she
is
an
illegitimate
child.
The
trial
court
had
denied
Federico’s
Motion
to
Dismiss,
hence
this
petition
for
certiorari.
Federico
contends
that,
inter
alia,
that
the
dispositive
portion
of
the
the
decision
declaring
the
marriage
of
Isabel’s
parents
“null
and
void”
be
upheld.
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
Isabel
is
a
legitimate
child.
HELD:
Petition
dismissed
Art.
10
of
the
Civil
Code
states
that
in
case
of
doubt
in
the
interpretation
and
application
of
laws,
it
is
presumed
that
the
lawmaking
body
intended
right
and
justice
to
prevail.
This
is
also
applicable
and
binding
upon
courts
in
relation
to
its
judgment.
While
the
dispositive
portion
of
the
CFI
decision
states
that
the
marriage
be
“declared
null
and
void,”
the
body
had
shown
that
the
legal
basis
was
par.
3
Art.
85
of
the
Civil
Code,
which
was
in
effect
at
the
time.
Art.
85
enumerates
the
causes
for
which
a
marriage
may
be
annulled.
As
such
the
conflict
between
the
body
and
the
dispositive
portion
of
the
decision
may
be
reconcilable
as
noted
by
the
Supreme
Court.
The
fundamental
distinction
between
void
and
voidable
marriages
is
that
void
marriage
is
deemed
never
to
have
taken
place
at
all.
The
effects
of
void
marriages,
with
respect
to
property
relations
of
the
spouses
are
provided
for
under
Article
144
of
the
Civil
Code.
Children
born
of
such
marriages
who
are
called
natural
children
by
legal
fiction
have
the
same
status,
rights
and
obligations
as
acknowledged
natural
children
under
Article
89
irrespective
of
whether
or
not
the
parties
to
the
void
marriage
are
in
good
faith
or
in
bad
faith.
On
the
other
hand,
a
voidable
marriage,
is
considered
valid
and
produces
all
its
civil
effects,
until
it
is
set
aside
by
final
judgment
of
a
competent
court
in
an
action
for
annulment.
Juridically,
the
annulment
of
a
marriage
dissolves
the
special
contract
as
if
it
had
never
been
entered
into
but
the
law
makes
express
provisions
to
prevent
the
effects
of
the
marriage
from
being
totally
wiped
out.
The
status
of
children
born
in
voidable
marriages
is
governed
by
the
second
paragraph
of
Article
89
which
provides
that:
Children
conceived
of
voidable
marriages
before
the
decree
of
annulment
shall
be
considered
legitimate;
and
children
conceived
thereafter
shall
have
the
same
status,
rights
and
obligations
as
acknowledged
natural
children,
and
are
also
called
natural
children
by
legal
fiction.
In
view
thereof,
the
status
of
Isabel
would
be
covered
by
the
second
paragraph
of
Article
89
of
the
Civil
Code
which
provides
that
“
children
conceived
of
voidable
marriages
before
the
decree
of
annulment
shall
be
considered
legitimate.”
Case
#
27
FACTS:
The
petitioner
and
respondent
were
married
and
had
four
children.
Lorna
filed
a
petition
for
declaration
of
nullity
of
their
marriage
on
the
ground
of
psychological
incapacity
on
the
part
of
her
husband.
She
alleged
that
he
is
emotionally
immature
and
irresponsible.
He
was
cruel
and
violent.
He
was
a
habitual
drinker.
Whenever
she
tells
him
to
stop
or
at
least
minimize
his
drinking,
her
husband
would
hurt
her.
There
was
even
a
time
when
she
was
chased
by
a
loaded
shotgun
and
threatened
to
kill
her
in
the
presence
of
their
children.
The
children
also
suffered
physical
violence.
Petitioner
and
their
children
left
the
home.
Two
months
later,
they
returned
upon
the
promise
of
respondent
to
change.
But
he
didn’t.
She
was
battered
again.
Her
husband
was
imprisoned
for
11
days
for
slight
physical
injuries.
RTC
declared
their
marriage
null
and
void.
CA
reversed
RTC’s
ruling.
Hence,
this
petition.
ISSUE:
W/N
the
guidelines
for
psychological
incapacity
in
the
case
of
Republic
vs
CA
&
Molina
should
be
taken
in
consideration
in
deciding
in
this
case.
HELD:
Yes.
In
the
Molina
case,
guidelines
were
laid
down
by
the
SC
before
a
case
would
fall
under
the
category
of
psychological
incapacity
to
declare
a
marriage
null
and
void.
This
decision
has
force
and
effect
of
a
law.
These
guidelines
are
mandatory
in
nature.
Petition
denied.
The
"doctrine
of
stare
decisis,"
ordained
in
Article
8
of
the
Civil
Code,
expresses
that
judicial
decisions
applying
or
interpreting
the
law
shall
form
part
of
the
legal
system
of
the
Philippines.
The
rule
follows
the
settled
legal
maxim
–
“legis
interpretado
legis
vim
obtinet”
–
that
the
interpretation
placed
upon
the
written
law
by
a
competent
court
has
the
force
of
law.
Case
#
28
G.R.
No.
130087,
September
24,
2003
Diana
M.
Barcelona
v.
CA
and
Tadeo
R.
Bengzon
Facts:
Petioner
Diana
Barcelona
and
respondent
Tadeo
Bengzon
contracted
marriage
after
their
whirlwind
courtship.
The
union
begot
five
children.
On
March
29,
1995,
private
respondent
Tadeo
Bengzon
filed
a
petition
for
annulment
of
marriage
on
ground
of
psychological
incapacity
against
petitioner
Diana
Barcelona.
On
May
9,
1995,
respondent
filed
a
Motion
to
withdraw
which
the
RTC
granted
on
June
7,
1995.On
July
21,
1995,
respondent
filed
a
new
petition
for
annulment
of
marriage
on
ground
of
psychological
incapacity
against
petitioner
Diana
Barcelona.
Petitioner
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
on
two
grounds
(1)
there
was
no
cause
of
action
in
the
second
petition
(2)
it
violates
SC
Administrative
Circular
on
forum
shopping.
RTC
issued
an
order
to
defer
resolution
on
the
motion
of
petitioner
until
arguments
in
the
hearing.
Petitioner
then
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration.
Petitioner
Diana
filed
a
Petition
for
Certiorari,
Prohibition
and
Mandamus
before
the
Court
of
Appeals
assailing
the
trial
court’s
first
order
deferring
action
on
the
Motion
and
the
second
order
denying
the
motion
for
reconsideration
on
14
February
1997.
The
Court
of
Appeals
dismissed
the
petition
and
denied
the
motion
for
reconsideration.
Hence,
this
petition.
Issue:
Whether
the
allegations
of
the
second
petition
for
annulment
of
marriage
sufficiently
state
a
cause
of
action
and
whether
respondent
Tadeo
violated
SC
Administrative
circular
on
forum
shopping.
Ruling:
Petitioner
contends
that
the
petition
fails
to
allege
the
root
cause
of
the
psychological
incapacity.
Subsequent
to
Santos
and
Molina,
the
Court
adopted
the
new
Rules
on
Declaration
of
Absolute
Nullity
of
Void
Marriages
and
Annulment
of
Voidable
Marriages:
The
complete
facts
should
allege
the
physical
manifestations,
if
any,
as
are
indicative
of
psychological
incapacity
at
the
time
of
the
celebration
of
the
marriage
but
expert
opinion
need
not
be
alleged.
Since
the
new
Rules
do
not
require
the
petition
to
allege
expert
opinion
on
the
psychological
incapacity,
it
follows
that
there
is
also
no
need
to
allege
in
the
petition
the
root
cause
of
the
psychological
incapacity
since
root
cause
can
only
be
ascertain
by
experts.
On
whether
respondent
Tadeo
violated
SC
Administrative
circular
on
forum
shopping,
as
the
court
have
ruled
that
an
omission
in
the
certificate
of
non-‐forum
shopping
about
any
event
that
would
not
constitute
res
judicata
and
litis
pendentia
as
in
the
case
at
bar,
is
not
fatal
as
to
merit
the
dismissal
and
nullification
of
the
entire
proceedings
considering
that
the
evils
sought
to
be
prevented
by
the
said
certificate
are
not
present.
The
dismissal
of
the
first
petition
precluded
the
eventuality
of
litis
pendentia.
The
first
petition’s
dismissal
did
not
also
amount
to
res
judicata.
Thus,
there
is
no
need
to
state
in
the
certificate
of
non-‐forum
shopping
in
the
second
petition
about
the
prior
filing
and
dismissal
of
the
first
petition.
Hence,
second
petition
is
not
subject
to
attack
by
a
motion
to
dismiss
on
the
grounds
cited
by
the
petitioner.
Petition
is
denied
and
decision
of
RTC
and
CA
were
affirmed.
Case
#
33
Antonio
v.
Reyes
G.R.
No.
155800,
March
10,
2006
Leonilo
Antonio
vs
Marie
Ivonne
F.
Reyes
FACTS:
Antonio
and
Reyes
first
got
married
at
Manila
City
Hall
and
subsequently
in
church
on
December
8,
1990.
A
child
was
born
in
April
1991
but
died
5
months
later.
Antonio
could
no
longer
take
her
constant
lying,
insecurities
and
jealousies
over
him
so
he
separated
from
her
in
August
1991.
He
attempted
reconciliation
but
since
her
behavior
did
not
change,
he
finally
left
her
for
good
in
November
1991.
Only
after
their
marriage
that
he
learned
about
her
child
with
another
man.
He
then
filed
a
petition
in
1993
to
have
his
marriage
with
Reyes
declared
null
and
void
under
Article
36
of
the
Family
Code.
The
trial
court
gave
credence
to
Antonio's
evidence
and
thus
declared
the
marriage
null
and
void.
Court
of
Appeals
reversed
the
trial
court's
decision.
It
held
that
the
totality
of
evidence
presented
was
insufficient
to
establish
Reyes'
psychological
incapacity.
It
declared
that
the
requirements
in
the
1997
Molina
case
had
not
been
satisfied.
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
Antonio
has
established
his
cause
of
action
for
declaration
of
nullity
under
Article
36
of
the
Family
Code
and,
generally,
under
the
Molina
guidelines.
RULING:
Yes.
The
petitioner,
aside
from
his
own
testimony,
presented
a
psychiatrist
and
clinical
psychologist
who
attested
that
constant
lying
and
extreme
jealousy
of
Reyes
is
abnormal
and
pathological
and
corroborated
his
allegations
on
his
wife's
behavior,
which
amounts
to
psychological
incapacity.
The
factual
findings
of
the
trial
court
are
deemed
binding
on
the
SC,
owing
to
the
great
weight
accorded
to
the
opinion
of
the
primary
trier
of
facts.
As
such,
it
must
be
considered
that
respondent
had
consistently
lied
about
many
material
aspects
as
to
her
character
and
personality.
Her
fantastic
ability
to
invent
and
fabricate
stories
and
personalities
enabled
her
to
live
in
a
world
of
make-‐believe.
This
made
her
psychologically
incapacitated
as
it
rendered
her
incapable
of
giving
meaning
and
significance
to
her
marriage.
The
case
sufficiently
satisfies
the
Molina
guidelines:
First,
that
Antonio
had
sufficiently
overcome
his
burden
in
proving
the
psychological
incapacity
of
his
wife;
Second,
that
the
root
cause
of
Reyes'
psychological
incapacity
has
been
medically
or
clinically
identified
that
was
sufficiently
proven
by
experts,
and
was
clearly
explained
in
the
trial
court's
decision;
Third,
that
she
fabricated
friends
and
made
up
letters
before
she
married
him
prove
that
her
psychological
incapacity
was
have
existed
even
before
the
celebration
of
marriage;
Fourth,
that
the
gravity
of
Reyes'
psychological
incapacity
was
considered
so
grave
that
a
restrictive
clause
was
appended
to
the
sentence
of
nullity
prohibited
by
the
National
Appellate
Matrimonial
Tribunal
from
contracting
marriage
without
their
consent;
Fifth,
that
she
being
an
inveterate
pathological
liar
makes
her
unable
to
commit
the
basic
tenets
of
relationship
between
spouses
based
on
love,
trust,
and
respect.
Sixth,
that
the
CA
clearly
erred
when
it
failed
to
take
into
consideration
the
fact
that
the
marriage
was
annulled
by
the
Catholic
Church.
However,
it
is
the
factual
findings
of
the
judicial
trier
of
facts,
and
not
of
the
canonical
courts,
that
are
accorded
significant
recognition
by
this
Court.
Seventh,
that
Reyes'
case
is
incurable
considering
that
Antonio
tried
to
reconcile
with
her
but
her
behavior
remains
unchanged.
Paras
v.
Paras
G.R.
147824,
August
2,
2007
Facts:
On
May
21,
1964,
petitioner
Rosa
Yap
married
respondent
Justo
J.
Paras
in
Bindoy,
Negros
Oriental.
They
begot
four
(4)
children,
namely:
Raoul
(deceased),
Cindy
Rose
(deceased),
Dahlia,
and
Reuel.
Twenty-‐nine
(29)
years
thereafter,
or
on
May
27,
1993,Rosafiled
with
the
Regional
Trial
Court
(RTC),
Branch
31,
Dumaguete
City,
a
complaint
for
a
nnulment
of
her
marriage
with
Justo,
under
Article
36
of
the
Family
Code,
docketed
as
Civil
Case
No.
10613.
She
alleged
that
Justo
is
psychologically
incapacitated
to
exercise
the
essential
obligations
of
marriage
as
shown
by
the
following
circumstances:
(a)
he
dissipated
her
business
assets
and
forged
her
signature
in
one
mortgage
transaction;
(b)
he
lived
with
a
concubine
and
sired
a
child
with
her;
(c)
he
did
not
give
financial
support
to
his
children;
and
(d)
he
has
been
remiss
in
his
duties
both
as
a
husband
and
as
a
father.
She
met
Justo
in
1961in
Bindoy.
She
was
then
a
student
of
San
Carlos
University,
Cebu
City.
He
courted
her,
frequently
spending
time
at
her
"Botica."
Eventually,
in1964
convinced
that
he
loved
her,
she
agreed
to
marry
him.
Their
wedding
was
considered
one
of
the
"most
celebrated"
marriages
in
Bindoy.
Sometime
in
1975,
their
daughter
Cindy
Rose
was
afflicted
with
leukemia.
It
was
her
family
who
paid
for
her
medication.
Also,
in
1984,
their
son
Raoul
was
electrocuted
while
Justo
was
in
their
rest
house
with
his
"barkadas."
He
did
not
heed
her
earlier
advice
to
bring
Raoul
in
the
rest
house
as
the
latter
has
the
habit
of
climbing
the
rooftop.
To
cope
with
the
death
of
the
children,
the
entire
family
went
to
the
United
States.
However,
after
three
months,
Justo
abandoned
them
and
left
for
the
Philippines.
Upon
her
return
to
the
Philippines,
she
was
shocked
to
find
her
"Botica"
and
other
businesses
heavy
in
debt
and
he
disposed
without
her
consent
a
conjugal
piece
of
land.
At
other
times,
he
permitted
the
municipal
government
to
take
gasoline
from
their
gas
station
free
of
charge.
His
act
of
maintaining
a
mistress
and
siring
an
illegitimate
child
was
the
last
straw
that
prompted
her
to
file
the
present
case.
She
found
that
after
leaving
their
conjugal
house
in
1988,
Justo
lived
with
Jocelyn
Ching.
Their
cohabitation
resulted
in
the
birth
of
a
baby
girl,
Cyndee
Rose,
obviously
named
after
her
(Rosa)
and
Justo‘s
deceased
daughter
Cindy
Rose
Paras.
He
also
denied
forging
her
signature
in
one
mortgage
transaction.
He
maintained
that
he
did
not
dispose
of
a
conjugal
property
and
that
he
and
Rosa
personally
signed
the
renewal
of
a
sugar
crop
loan
before
the
bank’s
authorized
employee.
He
did
not
abandon
his
family
in
the
United
States.
For
his
part,
he
was
granted
only
three
(3)
months
leave
as
municipal
mayor
of
Bindoy,
thus,
he
immediately
returned
to
the
Philippines.
He
spent
for
his
children’s
education.
At
first,
he
resented
supporting
them
because
he
was
just
starting
his
law
practice
and
besides,
their
conjugal
assets
were
more
than
enough
to
provide
for
their
needs.
He
admitted
though
that
there
were
times
he
failed
to
give
them
financial
support
because
of
his
lack
of
income.
What
caused
the
inevitable
family
break-‐
out
was
Rosa’s
act
of
embarrassing
him
during
his
birthday
celebration
in
1987.
She
did
not
prepare
food
for
the
guests.
When
confronted,
she
retorted
that
she
has
nothing
to
do
with
his
birthday.
This
convinced
him
of
her
lack
of
concern.
This
was
further
aggravated
when
she
denied
his
request
for
engine
oil
when
his
vehicle
broke
down
in
a
mountainous
and
NPA-‐infested
area.
As
to
the
charge
of
concubine,
he
alleged
that
Jocelyn
Ching
is
not
his
mistress,
but
her
secretary
in
his
Law
Office.
She
was
impregnated
by
her
boyfriend,
a
certain
Grelle
Leccioness.
Cyndee
Rose
Ching
Leccioness
is
not
his
daughter.
After
trial
or
on
February
28,
1995,
the
RTC
rendered
a
Decision
upholding
the
validity
of
the
marriage.
It
found
that:
(a)
Justo
did
not
abandon
the
conjugal
home
as
he
was
forced
to
leave
after
Rosa
posted
guards
at
the
gates
of
their
house;
(b)
the
conjugal
assets
were
sufficient
to
support
the
family
needs,
thus,
there
was
no
need
for
Justo
to
shell
out
his
limited
salary;
and
(c)
the
charge
of
infidelity
is
unsubstantiated.
The
RTC
observed
that
the
relationship
between
the
parties
started
well,
negating
the
existence
of
psychological
incapacity
on
either
party
at
the
time
of
the
celebration
of
their
marriage.
And
lastly,
it
ruled
that
there
appeared
to
be
a
collusion
between
them
as
both
sought
the
declaration
of
nullity
of
their
marriage.
On
October
18,
2000,
this
Court
rendered
its
Decision
finding
him
guilty
of
falsifying
Rosa’s
signature
in
bank
documents,
immorality,
and
abandonment
of
his
family.
He
was
suspended
from
the
practice
of
law,
thus:
the
respondent
is
suspended
from
the
practice
of
law
for
SIX
(6)
MONTHS
on
the
charge
of
falsifying
his
wife’s
signature
in
bank
documents
and
other
related
loan
instruments;
and
for
ONE
(1)
YEAR
from
the
practice
of
law
on
the
charges
of
immorality
and
abandonment
of
his
own
family,
the
penalties
to
be
served
simultaneously.
Let
notice
of
this
Decision
be
spread
in
respondent’s
record
as
an
attorney,
and
notice
of
the
same
served
on
the
Integrated
Bar
of
the
Philippines
and
on
the
Office
of
the
Court
Administrator
for
circulation
to
all
the
courts
concerned.
On
December
8,
2000,
the
Court
of
Appeals
affirmed
the
RTC
Decision
in
the
present
case,
holding
that
"the
evidence
of
the
plaintiff
(Rosa)
falls
short
of
the
standards
required
by
law
to
decree
a
nullity
of
marriage."
It
ruled
that
Justo’s
alleged
defects
or
idiosyncrasies
"were
sufficiently
explained
by
the
evidence,"
Rosa
contends
that
this
Court’s
factual
findings
in
A.C.
No.
5333
for
disbarment
are
conclusive
on
the
present
case.
Consequently,
the
Court
of
Appeals
erred
in
rendering
contrary
factual
findings.
Also,
she
argues
that
she
filed
the
instant
complaint
sometime
in
May,
1993
Issues:
1)
Whether
the
factual
findings
of
this
Court
in
A.C.
No.
5333
are
conclusive
on
the
presentcase;
2)
Whether
a
remand
of
this
case
to
the
RTC
for
reception
of
expert
testimony
on
the
root
cause
of
Justo’s
alleged
psychological
incapacity
is
necessary;
and3)
Whether
the
totality
of
evidence
in
the
case
shows
psychological
incapacity
on
the
part
of
Justo
Held:
1)
A
reading
of
the
Court
of
Appeals’
Decision
shows
that
she
has
no
reason
to
feel
aggrieved.
In
fact,
the
appellate
court
even
assumed
that
her
charges
"are
true,"
but
concluded
that
they
are
insufficient
to
declare
the
marriage
void
on
the
ground
of
psychological
incapacity.
Justo's
alleged
infidelity,
failure
to
support
his
family
and
alleged
abandonment
of
their
family
home
are
true,
such
traits
are
at
best
indicators
that
he
is
unfit
to
become
an
ideal
husband
and
father.
However,
by
themselves,
these
grounds
are
insufficient
to
declare
the
marriage
void
due
to
an
incurable
psychological
incapacity.
These
grounds,
we
must
emphasize,
do
not
manifest
that
he
was
truly
in
cognitive
of
the
basic
marital
covenants
that
he
must
assume
and
discharge
as
a
married
person.
While
they
may
manifest
the
"gravity"
of
his
alleged
psychological
incapacity,
they
do
not
necessarily
show
‘incurability’,
such
that
while
his
acts
violated
the
covenants
of
marriage,
they
do
not
necessarily
show
that
such
acts
show
an
irreparably
hopeless
state
of
psychological
incapacity
which
prevents
him
from
undertaking
the
basic
obligations
of
marriage
in
the
future.