Philippine Jurisprudence - LEOUEL SANTOS vs.

COURT OF APPEALS

This is a case bet een L!uie and Julia h! have tied "n!t !n Septe#ber $%& '()*. On +a, ')& '()) Julia le-t -!r the United States t! !r" as nurse and did n!t return n!r c!##unicate ith her husband -!r #!re than -ive ,ears. Eventuall, her husband s!u.ht her in the US hen he .!t a chance t! visit in that place but n! t! avail. N! the deserted husband -iled a case inv!"in. ps,ch!l!.ical incapacit,. The supre#e c!urt ruled that this is n!t a ps,ch!l!.ical incapacit, because ps,ch!l!.ical incapacit, #ust be characteri/ed b, .ravit,& 0uridical& antecedence and incurabilit,. This incapacit, #ust be .rave !r seri!us and deep r!!ted in the hist!r, !- the the !ther part, a, bac" t! the ver, be.innin. !- the celebrati!n !- #arria.e alth!u.h the !vert act !- this incapacit, #ani-ests !nl, therea-ter. 1n additi!n it #ust n!t be less than #ental and n!t 0ust ph,sical t! the e2tent that the c!#plained part, is vehe#entl, inc!.nitive -r!# the ver, be.innin. t! .ive #eanin. and si.ni-icance t! the #arria.e. This as n!t pr!ven in this case there-!re the petiti!n !- the deserted husband as denied.

Philippine Jurisprudence - REPU3L1C OF T4E P41L. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROR15EL OL161ANO +OL1NA

This real li-e s!ap !pera starred Re,nald! and R!ridel h! s!le#ni/ed their #arria.e !n April '7& '()8 and later b!re a s!n !ut !- ut#!st l!ve and passi!n. 4! ever a ,ear later the husband sh! s a si.n !- i##aturit, and irresp!nsibilit, as a -ather b, pre-errin. t! be ith his peers and -riends instead !- his -a#il,. 1n additi!n t! his i-e9s calvar,& Re,nald! depends !nl, in his parents -!r the supp!rt !- his -a#il, and as never h!nest t! their -inances that resulted int! -re:uent :uarrel. This pr!ble# results int! liti.ati!n inv!"in. ps,ch!l!.ical incapacit, citin. irrec!ncilable di--erences. The supre#e c!urt decided that the #ere sh! in. !- irrec!ncilable di--erences is in n! case ps,ch!l!.ical incapacit,. 1t is n!t en!u.h t! pr!ve that the parties -ailed t! #eet their duties and resp!nsibilities c!nstitutes ps,ch!l!.ical incapacit,. There is n! sh! in. !- the .ravit, !- the pr!ble#& neither it9s 0uridical antecedence !r incurabilit,. 1n this case the supre#e c!urt held that their #arria.e ill re#ain t! be valid.

REPU3L1C OF T4E P41L1PP1NES vs. LOL1TA 4A+ANO

This case inv!lves L!lita and her Japanese husband T!shi!. 4er husband ent bac" t! Japan t! spent s!#e h!lida,s ith his -a#il, and pr!#ised t! .! bac" t! the Philippines. A-ter sendin. #!ne, -!r t ! #!nths the latter st!pped .ivin. -inancial supp!rt and aband!ned his -a#il,. N! L!lita petiti!ned the c!urt pra,in. -!r the nullit, !- her #arria.e !n the .r!und !- ps,ch!l!.ical incapacit, because !- aband!n#ent. The supre#e c!urt ruled that the act !- aband!n#ent !n the part !- the husband as d!ubtlessl, irresp!nsible but it as never pr!ven t! be due t! s!#e "ind !- ps,ch!l!.ical illness. There as n! pr!!- !- a natal !r supervenin. disablin. -act!r in the pers!n& an adverse inte.ral ele#ent in the

pers!nalit, structure that e--ectivel, incapacitates a pers!n -r!# acceptin. and c!#pl,in. !bli.ati!ns essential t! #arria.e. ;here-!re the petiti!ned -iled b, L!lita as denied and set aside.

ith the

LEON1LO ANTON1O 6S. +AR1E 16ONNE F. RE<ES

This is a petiti!n -iled b, husband Le!nil! t! nulli-, his #arria.e ith his i-e +arie. The -!r#er -!und !ut that the latter -re:uentl, tellin. lies resultin. t! his dis#a,. 4is i-e is li"el, t! -abricate thin.s and events ab!ut her educati!nal attain#ent& career& inc!#e and an, !ther #atter. +!re!ver she is tellin. t! have "n! n s!#eb!d, h! are in realit, n!t a real pers!n. She is li"el, t! be a c!n.enital liar. 1n supp!rt t! the husbands petiti!n he presented a ps,ch!l!.ical tests that +arie9s c!nstant l,in. are path!l!.ical dis!rder. Acc!rdin. t! the trial c!urt& resp!ndent=s -antastic abilit, t! invent and -abricate st!ries and pers!nalities enabled her t! live in a !rld !- #a"e-believe. That her inabilit, t! distin.uish -r!# -antas, and realit,& truth -r!# -icti!n antedates -r!# the ver, be.innin. !- the #arria.e and a--ects the a, she entered int! #arria.e. This #ade her ps,ch!l!.icall, incapacitated as it rendered her incapable !- .ivin. #eanin. and si.ni-icance t! her #arria.e. The trial c!urt thus declared the #arria.e bet een Le!nil! and +arie null and v!id.

C41 +1N> TSO1 vs. COURT OF APPEALS

This is a real li-e dra#a !- a distrau.ht i-e a.ainst her uncarin. husband. Ten #!nths have alread, passed h! ever the husband did n!t initiate se2ual c!ntact t! his i-e alth!u.h the, have shared the sa#e bedr!!# and sleepin. t!.ether in the sa#e bed. This is supp!rted b, a #edical evidence that >ina is still vir.in a-ter '% #!nths !- #arria.e hile her husband is capable !- havin. se2ual interc!urse because he as n!t an i#p!tent. 1n this petiti!n the c!urt stated that l!ve is useless unless it is shared ith an!ther. 1ndeed& n! #an is an island& the cruelest act !- a partner in #arria.e is t! sa, ?1 c!uld n!t have cared less.@ This is s! because an un.iven sel- is an un-ul-illed sel-. The e.!ist has n!thin. but hi#sel-. 1n the natural !rder& it is se2ual inti#ac, that brin.s sp!uses h!leness and !neness. Se2ual inti#ac, is a .i-t and a participati!n in the #,ster, !- creati!n. 1t is a -uncti!n hich enlivens the h!pe !- pr!creati!n and ensures the c!ntinuati!n !- -a#il, relati!ns. Further#!re !ne !- the basis -!r #arria.e is t! pr!create children based !n se2ual c!!perati!n. ;here-!re the petiti!n !- >ina is .ranted and declared the #arria.e v!id.