PS 116 : CIVIL LAW 1

CASE DIGESTS

Submitted to :
Mr. Henry De Leon, MAT MBA, LBB

Submitted by:
Bambalan , Dexter John
De leon , Elamar O.
Jovenal , Jade Nove R.
Martinez, Yda Noeme T.
Tiru, Stephanee Lee
G.R. No. 209031 APRIL 16, 2018

ABIGAEL AN EPINA-DAN, Petitioner

vs

MARCO DAN, Respondent

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to set aside the

December 14, 2012 Decision2 and August 29, 2013 Resolution3 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) denying the Petition in CA-G.R. CV No.95112 and herein
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration,4 respectively, thus affirming the
January 4, 2010 Decision5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas
City, Branch 254, in Civil Case No. LP07-0155.

FACTS:

 In May 2005, petitioner Abigael Espina-Dan and respondent Marco

Dan, an Italian national met in a chatroom on the internet. They soon
became “chatmates” and began exchanging letters which further drew
them emotionally closer to each other even though petitioner was in
the Philippines while respondent lived in Italy. In November 2005,
respondent proposed marriage and they tied the knot on January the
following year. The couple lived together in Italy. On April 18, 2007,
petitioner left respondent and flew back into the country.

 On September 14,2007, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of

nullity of her marriage. The Office of Solicitor General representing
the Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition. RTC issued its
Decision dismissing the petition on the ground that petitioner’s
evidence failed to adequately prove respondent’s alleged psychological
incapacity.

 Petitioner testified that during their honeymoon, petitioner noticed

that the respondent was not circumcised. Moreover when petitioner
left to join respondent in Italy, she testified that respondent started
displaying traits, character and attitude different from that of Marco
whom she had known thri the internet. He was immature, childish,
irresponsible and dependent. He depended on his mother to do or to
 decide things for him. Respondent was also addicted to video games,
extremely lazy that he never helped her in found all the household
chores. He also has extremely poor hygiene.

 However, the trial court rules that the evidence adduced by petitioner
is support of the petition is miserable wanting in force to convince the
trial court that her marriage with respondent comes and qualifies
under the provision of Article 36 of the Family Code and hence under
to discharge completely her burden of overcoming the legal
presumption of validity and the continuance of her marriage with
respondent, declaration of nullity of same marriage is not in order.

 Article 36 of the Family Code provides:

A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration
of marriage, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

 On January 4, 2010, the RTC issued its Decision dismissing the

petition on the ground that petitioner's evidence failed to adequately
prove respondent's alleged psychological incapacity.

Petitioner filed an appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 95112.
In its assailed December 14, 2012 Decision, however, the CA denied the
appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision. Hence this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not totality of petitioner's evidence established the psychological
incapacity of respondent and satisfied the standards of Republic vs. Court of
appeals and Molina and other prevailing jurisprudence in point.
Decision:

No. Both the trial and appellate courts dismissed the petition in Civil Case
No. LP-07-0155 on the ground that petitioner's evidence failed to sufficiently
prove that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to enter marriage at
the time. The court held that while petitioner alleged such condition, she was
unable to establish its existence, gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability based solely on her testimony, which is insufficient, self-serving,
unreliable, and uncorroborated.

"What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish

the party's psychological condition.”

With the declared insufficiency of the testimonies of petitioner and her

witness, the weight of proving psychological incapacity shifts to Dr. Tayag's
expert findings. The court find these observations and conclusions
insufficiently in-depth and comprehensive to warrant the conclusion that a
psychological incapacity existed that prevented the respondent from
complying with the essential obligations of marriage.
It failed to identify the root cause of the respondent's narcissistic personality
disorder and to prove that it existed at the inception of the marriage. Neither
did it explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, nor show that
the respondent was realty incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some
incapacity of a psychological, not physical, nature. 

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed an appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 95112.
In its assailed December 14, 2012 Decision, however, the CA denied the
appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision, declaring thus:

x x x There is no ground to declare the marriage x x x null and void on the

ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Thus, the court a quo correctly denied the petition for annulment of
marriage
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On September 14, 2007, petitioner filed a Petition8 for declaration of nullity

of her marriage, docketed as Civil Case No. LP-07-0155with the RTC of Las
Piñas City, Branch 254. The Office of the Solicitor General representing the
Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition.

On January 4, 2010, the RTC issued its Decision dismissing the petition on
the ground mat petitioner's evidence failed to adequately prove respondent's
alleged psychological incapacity. It held, thus:

Testifying thru her Judicial Affidavit x x x petitioner stated that sometime in

May 2005, she chanced upon the respondent, an Italian, in the internet x x x
and they became regular chatmates. x x x In their exchanges of chat
messages and letters, she found respondent to be sweet, kind and jolly, He
made her feel that he really cared for her. He was romantic, x x x [A]lthough
at times, respondent was impatient and easily got irritated, x x x.

2nd Case
[ G.R. No. 236629, July 23, 2018 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. LIBERATO P. MOLA
CRUZ, RESPONDENT.
FACTS:

 Respondent decided to file a petition for declaration of nullity of

marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code against his wife Liezl.
 They both went to Japan for work and it was when respondent
noticed changes in Liezl.
  The couple later returned to the Philippines after Liezl was released
from detention due to overstaying in Japan. It was then that Liezl
confessed to respondent her romantic affair with a Japanese man.
 Despite the confession, Liezl did not end the illicit relationship.
 Respondent would give Liezl a chance but found out that Liezl already
cohabited with her lover.
 The RTC relied on the psychological report and testimony of expert
witness, Dr. Pacita Tudla (Dr. Tudla) a clinical psychologist.
 Based on the evaluation and assessment procedure she followed, Dr.
Tudla found that Liezl was afflicted by histrionic personality disorder,
a pervasive pattern of behavior characterized by excessive
emotionality and attention seeking. A histrionic so afflicted tends to
be perceived by others as selfish, egotistical and unreliable; seeking
immediate gratification; over-reactive to even minor provocations;
suggestible; and lacking in analytical ability.

ISSUE:
A. Whether Liezl's psychological incapacity to comply with her marital
obligations was sufficiently established by the totality of evidence presented
by respondent.

DECISION:
A. Yes, the RTC granted respondent's petition, and declared respondent and
Liezl's marriage void ab initio and their property regime dissolved. The RTC
relied on the psychological report and testimony of a clinical psychologist
who found that Liezl was afflicted by histrionic personality disorder, a
pervasive pattern of behavior characterized by excessive emotionality and
attention seeking. Aside from the existence of Liezl's psychological incapacity
prior to the marriage, the doctor found her incapacity too grave that it
seriously impaired her relationship with her husband, and caused her
failure to discharge the basic obligations of marriage which resulted in its
breakdown. These traits were especially reflected in Liezl’s highly unusual
acts of allowing her Japanese boyfriend to stay in the marital abode, sharing
the marital bed with his Japanese boyfriend and introducing her husband as
her elder brother, all done under the threat of desertion. Such blatant
insensitivity and lack of regard for the sanctity of the marital bond and home
cannot be expected from a married person who reasonably understands the
principle and responsibilities of marriage. 

3rd Case

G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-

TSOI, respondents.

Facts:

 This case was originally commenced by a distraught wife against her

uncaring husband in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch
89) which decreed the annulment of the marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity. Petitioner appealed the decision of the trial
court to respondent Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 42758) which
affirmed the Trial Court's decision November 29, 1994 and
correspondingly denied the motion for reconsideration in a resolution
dated February 14, 1995.
 In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place where they can
enjoy together during their first week as husband and wife, they went
to Baguio City. They did so together with her mother, an uncle, his
mother and his nephew. They were all invited by the defendant to join
them. They stayed in Baguio City for four (4) days. But, during this
period, there was no sexual intercourse between them, since the
defendant avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or by
just sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living room. They slept
together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22, 1988
until March 15, 1989. But during this period, there was no attempt of
sexual intercourse between them. She claims, that she did not: even
see her husband's private parts nor did he see hers.
 They submitted themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio
Macalalag, a urologist at the Chinese General Hospital, on January
20, 1989. The results of their physical examinations were that she is
healthy, normal and still a virgin, while that of her husband's
examination was kept confidential up to this time. While no medicine
was prescribed for her, the doctor prescribed medications for her
husband which was also kept confidential. No treatment was given to
her. For her husband, he was asked by the doctor to return but he
never did.
 The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet
homosexual as he did not show his penis. She said, that she had
observed the defendant using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the
cleansing cream of his mother. And that, according to her, the
defendant married her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain his
residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the
appearance of a normal man.
  The defendant admitted that since their marriage on May 22, 1988,
until their separation on March 15, 1989, there was no sexual contact
between them. But, the reason for this, according to the defendant,
was that every time he wants to have sexual intercourse with his wife,
she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts,
she always removed his hands. The defendant claims, that he forced
his wife to have sex with him only once but he did not continue
because she was shaking and she did not like it. So he stopped.
 There are two (2) reasons, according to the defendant, why the
plaintiff filed this case against him, and these are: (1) that she is
afraid that she will be forced to return the pieces of jewelry of his
mother, and, (2) that her husband, the defendant, will consummate
their marriage. And defendant submitted himself to a physical
examination. His penis was examined by Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr., for the
purpose of finding out whether he is impotent. As a result thereof, Dr.
Alteza submitted his Doctor's Medical Report. There is no evidence of
impotency. Although, his penis is erecting 3 inches (soft erection) but
he is capable for further erection and declared that he is capable of
having sexual intercourse with woman.
 The Trial Prosecutor manifested that there is no collusion between the
parties and that the evidence is not fabricated. And declared the
petition void. And the CA upheld the decision of the Trial court.
Hence, the plaintiff elevated the case with the Supreme Court.
Issue:

 WON the petitioner is psychologically incapacitated inasmuch as

proof thereof is totally absent
Decision:

 Yes, we find the petition to be bereft of merit.

Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is
"To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of
children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage." Constant
non- fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or
wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted
refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity.
It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private
respondent. That is — a shared feeling which between husband and wife
must be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a
deep sense of spiritual communion.
This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties
found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and
unconsummated marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the
studied judgment of respondent appellate court.