This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-12-16 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| By issuing said summary judgment, the trial court has divested the State of its lawful right and duty to intervene in the case. The participation of the State is not terminated by the declaration of the public prosecutor that no collusion exists between the parties. The State should have been given the opportunity to present controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered.[15] | |||||
|
2008-09-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Marcos v. Marcos,[17] the Court ruled that if the totalities of the evidence presented are enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, there is no need to resort to the actual medical examination of the person concerned. However, while an actual medical, psychiatric, or psychological examination is not a condition sine qua non to a finding of psychological incapacity, an expert witness would have strengthened petitioner's claim of respondent's psychological incapacity.[18] While the examination by a physician of a person to declare him or her psychologically incapacitated is not required, the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified.[19] In this case, the testimony of Dr. Lapuz on respondent's psychological incapacity was based only on her two-hour session with petitioner. Her testimony was characterized by the Court of Appeals as vague and ambiguous. She failed to prove psychological incapacity or identify its root cause. She failed to establish that respondent's psychological incapacity is incurable. Dr. Lapuz testified: Q- What, in your opinion are the causes of this incapacity? A- I feel, your Honor, that there is some personality agenda on his part that I do not know because he has not come to see me but there are such men who can be very ardent lovers but suddenly will completely turn over... | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, let it be stressed that it is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution, and marriage as the foundation of the family.[30] The Constitution decrees marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties.[31] The Family Code under Article 48 [32] therefore requires courts to order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned, in cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, to appear on behalf of the State in order to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Indeed, only the active participation of the Public Prosecutor or the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) will ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and declarations of nullity of marriage by preventing collusion between the parties, or the fabrication or suppression of evidence. [33] | |||||