Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: San Agustin v. Sales (G.R. No 189289)

Republic v. Pangasinan | GR. No. 214077 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Psychological incapacity |

FACTS:

  • In 1981, Danilo Pangasinan, respondent, met his wife Josephine at the Philippine Plaza Hotel in Manila. After a three-month courtship, Josephine got pregnant which led them to contract marriage, first civilly on December 29, 1981, then a church wedding on January 23, 1982. The couple has three children. 
  • They had a harmonious relationship that was only marred by arguments on money matters from time to time. Their relationship started to change when Danilo’s business began to slow down including allegations of infidelity against him. They fought constantly because Danilo was not able to support his wife and children the same way they were accustomed to. In September 2007, Josephine left their conjugal home after a heated fight with her husband who left for a business trip the day she underwent hysterectomy. 
  • Thereafter, Josephine filed two cases against her husband for violation of R.A. 9262 and a petition for annulment, all of which she withdrew. Subsequently she filed an action for legal separation. 
  • After 30 years of marriage, Danilo filed a petition dated May 25, 2011 with the RTC for the nullity of his marriage to Josephine on the ground of psychological incapacity. The petition was consolidated with Josephine’s action for legal separation. Danilo alleged in his petition that his wife already exhibited negative traits from the time they were a couple which only became more evident when they were married. 
    • He said that his wife was domineering and enjoyed talking about herself. She even expected him to give her gifts which he did by buying her nice and expensive gifts. 
    • Danilo also emphasized the fact that she had an exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement. 
    • Josephine made it appear that she was superior to him and took it upon herself to make all decisions for the family, especially involving money matters. 
    • Surprisingly she did not even have any empathy towards the plight of her husband when he underwent heart surgery. 
    • In support of his case, Danilo presented Dr. Dayan, a psychologist, who in her Psychological Evaluation concluded that the spouses are psychologically incapacitated. 
    • Meanwhile, Josephine did not present any controverting evidence. 
  • On March 6, 2012, the RTC rendered its decision declaring the marriage between Danilo and Josephine void from the start. The OSG moved for reconsideration of the decision, but the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. The CA ruled that Josephine was indeed psychologically incapacitated citing the Molina Case.

ISSUE:

W/N the evidence presented was enough to prove that the marriage was void ab initio based on the parties psychological incapacity as provided in Article 36. 

RULING:

  • According to the Supreme Court “psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify marriage under Article 36 of the Family code should refer to no less than a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.” It should be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability and these characteristics were established in the case of Molina where the guidelines for psychological incapacity were laid down. Therefore, psychological capacity of a person must be rooted on a clinically or medically identifiable grave illness. 
  • However, the evidence of respondent failed to establish psychological incapacity. Dr. Dayan’s findings were based on generalities and lacking in factual bases. The findings were mostly based on the psychological examination on Danilo, his sister, and their son Jay and not from Josephine herself. Dr. Dayan even testified that she merely interviewed Josephine through a phone call. This undermines the credibility of the psychological evaluation of Josephine. 
  • Although, it was not necessary that a physician examine a person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. It was important to present evidence that can adequately establish a party’s psychological incapacity. In the case, there was no reliable or independent evidence to establish Josephine’s psychological incapacity. 
  • For the aforesaid reasons, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the CA and denied the declaration of nullity of marriage of the respondent.
DISPOSITION: PETITION GRANTED

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more