You're currently signed in as:
User

LUCITA ESTRELLA HERNANDEZ v. CA

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2012-11-12
BERSAMIN, J.
The CA held the testimonies of petitioner's witnesses insufficient to establish Dominic's psychological affliction to be of such a grave or serious nature that it was medically or clinically rooted. Relying on the pronouncements in Republic v. Dagdag,[13] Hernandez v. Court of Appeals[14] and Pesca v. Pesca,[15] the CA observed: In her testimony, petitioner described her husband as immature, deceitful and without remorse for his dishonesty, and lack of affection. Such characteristics, however, do not necessarily constitute a case of psychological incapacity. A person's inability to share or take responsibility, or to feel remorse for his misbehavior, or even to share his earnings with family members, are indicative of an immature mind, but not necessarily a medically rooted psychological affliction that cannot be cured.