Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUANITA CARATING-SIAYNGCO v. MANUEL SIAYNGCO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 173138 2010-12-01	NOEL B. BACCAY v. MARIBEL C. BACCAY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The CA further held that Maribel's refusal to have sexual intercourse with Noel did not constitute a ground to find her psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code. As Noel admitted, he had numerous sexual relations with Maribel before their marriage. Maribel therefore cannot be said to be incapacitated to perform this particular obligation and that such incapacity existed at the time of marriage.[13]
	GR No. 166562 2009-03-31	BENJAMIN G. TING v. CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING NACHURA, J.
It should be remembered that the presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.[65] In this case, the presumption has not been amply rebutted and must, perforce, prevail.
	GR NO. 157610 2007-10-19	ORLANDO G. TONGOL v. FILIPINAS M. TONGOL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Fourth, the psychological incapacity considered under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses.[16] The fourth guideline in Molina requires that the psychological incapacity as understood under Article 36 of the Family Code must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. In the present case, the testimonies of both petitioner and respondent as well as the other witnesses regarding the spouses' differences and misunderstanding basically revolve around and are limited to their disagreement regarding the management of their business. In fact, respondent herself, in her Memorandum submitted to the trial court, claimed that their quarrels arose solely from their disagreement on how to run their business.[17] This is confirmed by the testimony of petitioner's sister who lived with the spouses for a considerable period of time.[18] However, a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.[19]
	GR NO. 167746 2007-08-28	RESTITUTO M. ALCANTARA v. ROSITA A. ALCANTARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. The presumption is always in favor of the validity of the marriage.[39] Every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage bonds. The Courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight.
	GR NO. 147824 2007-08-02	ROSA YAP PARAS v. JUSTO J. PARAS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Carating-Siayngco v. Siayngco,[56] the wife's inability to conceive led her husband to other women so he could fulfill his ardent wish to have a child of his own flesh and blood. This Court ruled that this is not a manifestation of psychological incapacity in the contemplation of the Family Code. In Choa v. Choa,[57] this Court declared that a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity. And, again, in Iyoy,[58] a Filipina left her husband, married an American and had a family by him, which she flaunted to her former husband. This Court ruled that these acts, while embarrassing and hurting to the latter, did not satisfactorily establish a serious or grave psychological or mental defect of an incurable nature present at the time of marriage; and that irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity, and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment per se do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36.
	GR NO. 167684 2006-07-31	JAIME O. SEVILLA v. CARMELITA N. CARDENAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
By our failure to come to the succor of Jaime, we are not trifling with his emotion or deepest sentiments. As we have said in Carating-Siayngco v. Siayngco,[32] regrettably, there are situations like this one, where neither law nor society can provide the specific answers to every individual problem.
	GR NO. 162368 2006-07-17	MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-FERRARIS v. BRIX FERRARIS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While petitioner's marriage with the respondent failed and appears to be without hope of reconciliation, the remedy however is not always to have it declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not a null and void marriage.[19] No less than the Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of the family; it decrees marriage as legally "inviolable" and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.[20]
	GR NO. 152577 2005-09-21	REPUBLIC v. CRASUS L. IYOY
It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.[27] Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article.[28]
	GR NO. 152577 2005-09-21	REPUBLIC v. CRASUS L. IYOY
Moreover, this Court resolves any doubt in favor of the validity of the marriage.[32] No less than the Constitution of 1987 sets the policy to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.[33]