Pesca v.

Pesca,
G.R. No. 136921
April 17, 2001

FACTS:

The petitioner and private respondent were married since 1975 and had four children. Lorna
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity to
perform his marital obligations. 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:

Whether or not 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. 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. The interpretation or construction
placed by the courts establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. The latter as so
interpreted and construed would thus constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is enacted.
It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds itself later overruled, and a different view is adopted,
that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the
old doctrine and have acted in good faith in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of “lex
prospicit, non respicit.”

Thus the term psychological incapacity, borrowed from the Canon Law, was given legal life by
the Court in the case of Santos; in the case of Molina, additional procedural guidelines to assist the
courts and the parties in trying cases for annulment of marriages grounded on psychological incapacity
was added. Both judicial decisions in Santos and Molina have the force and effect of law. Thus,
the guidelines in the case of Molina are mandatory in nature. The petition was denied.