MATUDAN v. REPUBLIC, 2016.

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Art. 36 of the Family Code states:
A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, 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.

Article 68 of the same Code provides:

'The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
render mutual help and support.'

MATUDAN v. REPUBLIC, 2016

Facts:
>> Matudan filed a petition for review on certiorari on the decision and resolution of the CA
denying the petition of the CA and motion for reconsideration ; thus, affirming the decision of
the RTC of Quezon City Branch 94 which dismissed the petition for annulment of marriage.
>> Private respondent Marilyn, after cohabitating with the petitioner Matudan for six (6) years
left for abroad to work, however, she has never been heard and whereabouts were not disclosed
to her family. She was not able to give love, care and support to her husband and kids.
>> It has been determined that the petitioner’s evidence to sufficiently prove that Marilyn was
psychologically unfit for marriage failed, and dismissal is deemed appropriate ruling of both the
trial and appellate courts. Petitioner could not establish its gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability.
Issue: 
>> Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in the given case calling for annulment.
Ruling:
>> Making hasty generalization based from a third-party narrative, is no different from admitting
hearsay evidence as proof of truthfulness of content of such evidence, thus, any information on
Marilyn’s psychological incapacity, based from the testimony of the petitioner can not be used as
proof.
>> Mere neglect or inability to function and give the proper care, love and support from a mother
to her children as well to her husband, is not a manifestation of psychological incapacity.
>> In the instant case, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to review. The task to
analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual
determination is not of the Courts responsibility. It is of standard that factual findings of the trial
court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court, thus, there is no need
to resolve the other issues raised.
>> Thus, the petition is DENIED and the CA’s decision are AFFIRMED.