PESCA v.

PESCA
G.R. No. 136921. April 17, 2001
VITUG, J.:
Procedural History:
Submitted for review is the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on 27 May
1988, in C.A. G.R. CV No 52374, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan
City, Branch 130, which has declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent to be null
and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Respondent.
Petitioner Lorna Guillen Pesca, in her plea to this court, would have the decision of the Court of
Appeals reversed on the thesis that the doctrine and the guidelines enunciated in Santos and
Molina cases should have no retroactive application and should be taken as merely advisory and
not mandatory in nature.
Statement of Facts:
Petitioner Lorna G. Pesca and respondent Zosimo A. Pesca met aboard an inter-island
vessel and had a whirlwind romance that ended into marriage on March 3, 1975. Initially, the
couples marriage was blissful and they begot four children. In 1998, the husband started to show
signs of misbehavior and according to wife, his true colors of being immature and
irresponsible became apparent. He was cruel, violent, and a habitual drinker. Even the children
were not spared from their fathers violence. On March 22, 1994, petitioner was battered black
and blue by her husband in the presence of their children. This led the petitioner to file a petition
for a declaration of nullity of marriage invoking psychological incapacity. On November 1995
following hearings, the trial court rendered its decision declaring the marriage between petitioner
and respondent to be null and void ab initio on the basis of psychological incapacity of the
respondent and ordered a liquidation of their properties. Respondent appealed the decision to the
Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the trial court and declared the marriage
between petitioner and respondent valid and subsisting.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellate court erred in reversing the decision of the trial court.
Answer:
No, the appellate court did not err in reversing the decision of the trial court. There was
absolutely no evidence that has been shown to prove psychological incapacity on the part of the
respondent as the term has been so defined in Santos. There is no merit in the petition.
Reasoning:
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity
that causes a party to be truly incognizant of the basic marital covenants discharged by the
parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their
mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
support. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated, with
which the respondent did not possess during the celebration of the marriage. In fact, the marriage
was blissful until apparent misdeed was displayed by the husband on the later part. At all events,

petitioner failed in establishing the guidelines to make out a case of psychological incapacity on
the part of the respondent as stated in Molina case.
The doctrine of Stare Decisis expresses that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the
law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines, and that the interpretation placed upon
the written law by a competent court has the force of law (People v. Jabinal, L-30061, February
27, 1974), making it mandatory and not merely advisory. A judicial interpretation becomes a
part of the law as of the date that law was originally passed. However, a reversal of that
interpretation cannot be given a retroactive effect to the prejudice of parties who had relied on
the first interpretation. In the case at bar, it is in Santos that the term psychological incapacity
has been given life by the court. Molina, on the other hand, provided additional procedural
guidelines to assist the courts and the parties in trying cases for annulment of marriages
grounded on psychological incapacity. Molina did not reverse Santos but strengthened the
grounds, giving it a retroactive effect on the case at bar.
"The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies in the plaintiff and any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity."
Holding:
WHEREFORE, the herein petition is DENIED.