Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DAVID B. DEDEL v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 159594 2012-11-12	REPUBLIC v. CA 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]
	GR No. 171042 2008-06-30	REPUBLIC v. LYNNETTE CABANTUG-BAGUIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
As reflected above, Lynnette failed to discharge the onus probandi. While the Court sympathizes with her predicament, its first and foremost duty is to apply the law.[54] Dura lex sed lex.
	GR NO. 147824 2007-08-02	ROSA YAP PARAS v. JUSTO J. PARAS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Dedel v. Court of Appeals[55] which involved a promiscuous wife who left her family to live with one of her many paramours, this Court ruled that the acts of sexual infidelity and abandonment do not constitute psychological incapacity absent a showing of the presence of such promiscuity at the inception of the marriage, thus:x x x. In this case, respondent's sexual infidelity can hardly qualify as being mentally or physically ill to such an extent that she could not have known the obligations she was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given a valid assumption thereof. It appears that respondent's promiscuity did not exist prior to or at the inception of the marriage. What is, in fact, disclosed by the records is a blissful marital union at its celebration, later affirmed in church rites, and which produced four children.
	GR No. 141441 2001-06-19	JOSE SUAN v. NLRC GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari[7] under Rule 65 with the respondent Court of Appeals alleging that the public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that he was not dismissed by private respondents and not entitled to backwages.