This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. Galang,[21]it was written that the Constitution set out a policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic social institution, and the marriage was the foundation of the family. Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies with the plaintiff. Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals a situation where the parties, or one of them, could not have validly entered into a marriage by reason of a grave and serious psychological illness existing at the time it was celebrated, the Court is compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The foregoing guidelines have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection. But Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the drafters to adopt its enacted version of "less specificity" obviously to enable "some resiliency in its application." Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity "not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according to its own facts" in recognition of the verity that no case would be on "all fours" with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every "trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court."[10] | |||||
|
2014-02-12 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68[33] of the Family Code, among others,[34] include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.[35] In Santos v. CA[36] (Santos), the Court first declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (a) gravity (i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage); (b) juridical antecedence (i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage); and (c) incurability (i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved).[37] The Court laid down more definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code in Republic of the Phils. v. CA,[38] whose salient points are footnoted hereunder.[39] These guidelines incorporate the basic requirements that the Court established in Santos.[40] Keeping with these principles, the Court, in Dedel v. CA,[41] held that therein respondent's emotional immaturity and irresponsibility could not be equated with psychological incapacity as it was not shown that these acts are | |||||
|
2012-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| What we can gather from the scant evidence that Eduardo adduced was Catalina's immaturity and apparent refusal to perform her marital obligations. However, her immaturity alone did not constitute psychological incapacity.[30] To rule that such immaturity amounted to psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the immature acts were manifestations of a disordered personality that made the spouse completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, which inability was merely due to her youth or immaturity.[31] | |||||