October 27, 2004
JUANITA CARATING-SIAYNGCO versus MANUEL
SIAYNGCO G.R. 158896.
differences” and “conflicting personalities of the husband and wife do
not constitute psychological incapacity. Manuel Siayngco
is a Judge of a Municipal Trial Court. He filed a Petition to declare
his marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity of his wife.
According to him, all throughout their marriage, his wife exhibited an
over domineering and selfish attitude towards him which was exacerbated
by her extremely volatile and bellicose nature; that she incessantly
complained about almost everything and anyone connected with him like
his elderly parents, the staff in his office and anything not of her
liking like the physical arrangement, tables, chairs, wastebaskets in
his office and with other trivial matters; that she showed no respect or
regard at all for the prestige and high position of his office as judge
of the Municipal Trial Court; that she would yell and scream at him and
throw objects around the house within the hearing of their neighbors;
that she cared even less about his professional advancement as she did
not even give him moral support and encouragement But his wife Juanita
disagreed and contested the Petition. She also presented her own expert
testimony - a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist basically told the Court
that Juanita is not psychologically incapacitated, contrary to the
earlier testimony of Manuel's testimony.
According to the Supreme Court, Manuel
Siayngco's situation is perceived to be a simple case of a married
couple drifting apart, becoming strangers to each other, with the
husband consequently falling out of love and wanting a way out.
The Supreme Court further states that "an unsatisfactory marriage, is
not a null and void marriage. Mere showing of “irreconcilable
differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes
psychological incapacity. Petition is denied.
March 03, 2004
MARIETTA B. ANCHETA versus RODOLFO S.
ANCHETA, G.R. No. 145370.
annulment proceedings in the Regional Trial Court. In this
case, Rodolfo Ancheta filed a Petition on June 5, 1995 before the
Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, Philippines in order to declare
his marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity. A month
thereafter or on July 7, 1995, the Court issued an Order granting the petition and
declaring the marriage of the parties void from the beginning. The clerk
of court issued a Certificate of Finality of the Order of the court on
July 16, 1996. Subsequently, on February 14, 1998, Valentine’s Day, Rodolfo Ancheta and
his second wife Teresita H. Rodil were married in civil rights before the
municipal mayor of Indang, Cavite.
However, on July 7, 2000, Rodolfo
Ancheta's first wife - Marietta Ancheta, filed a Petition before the
Court of Appeals questioning the annulment proceedings of the Regional
Trial Court of Naic sometime in June 1995. Marietta Acheta wanted to
nullify the decision of the annulment case on ground of lack of
jurisdiction of Naic RTC over his person because according to her she
was not notified of such case. She would have interposed an objection if
she was only notified of such proceedings. The Court of Appeals
dismissed her Petition. But the Supreme Court nullified the decision of
the Court of Appeals on appeal. The Supreme Court expressed alarm at
what transpired in the RTC of Naic, Cavite as shown by the records. The
records show that the trial court granted the motion of Rodolfo to
declare Marietta in default for her failure to file an Answer to
Rodolfo's Petition for Annulment. The public prosecutor condoned the
acts of the trial court when he interposed no objection to the motion of
the respondent. The trial court forthwith received the evidence of the
respondent ex-parte and rendered judgment against the petitioner without
a whimper of protest from the public prosecutor. The actuations of the
trial court and the public prosecutor are in defiance of the provisions
of the Family Code.
January 29, 2004
DAVID B. DEDEL versus COURT OF APPEALS and
SHARON L. CORPUZ-DEDEL a.k.a. JANE IBRAHIM G.R. No. 151867.
or Promiscuity does not constitute psychological incapacity. In
this case, David B. Dedel filed a Petition to declare his marriage void
on the ground of the psychological incapacity of his wife - Sharon.
According to David, Sharon turned out to be an irresponsible and
immature wife and mother. She had extra-marital affairs with several
men: a dentist in the Armed Forces of the Philippines; a Lieutenant in
the Presidential Security Command and later a Jordanian national. Sharon
was once confirmed in the Manila Medical City for treatment by Dr.
Lourdes Lapuz, a clinical psychiatrist. David also told that despite the
treatment, Sharon did not stop her illicit relationship with the
Jordanian national named Mustafa Ibrahim, whom she married and with whom
she had two children. However, when Mustafa Ibrahim left the country,
Sharon returned to him bringing along her two children by Ibrahim. He
accepted her back and even considered the two illegitimate children as
his own. But on December 9, 1995, Sharon abandoned David to join Ibrahim
in Jordan with their two children. Since then, Sharon would only return
to the country on special occasions. Finally, giving up all hope of a
reconciliation with Sharon, David filed the Petition on April 1, 1997.
Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, who testified
that Sharon was suffering from Anti-Social Personality Disorder exhibited by
her blatant display of infidelity; that she committed several
indiscretions and had no capacity for remorse, even bringing with her
the two children of Mustafa Ibrahim to live with petitioner. Such
immaturity and irresponsibility in handling the marriage like her
repeated acts of infidelity and abandonment of her family are
indications of Anti-Social Personality Disorder amounting to
psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of
marriage. The Regional Trial of Makati, the Court where the case was
filed granted the Petition.
But According to the Supreme Court,
Sharon's sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not by
themselves constitute psychological incapacity within the contemplation
of the Family Code. Neither could her emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility be equated with psychological incapacity. It must be
shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality
which make respondent completely unable to discharge the essential
obligations of the marital state, not merely due to her youth,
immaturity or sexual promiscuity. The Decision of the RTC, Makati
granting the Petition is reversed. Consequently, the Petition to declare
the marriage void is dismissed.
Other Related Cases:
January 29, 2004
VERONICO TENEBRO versus THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS. [EN BANC] G.R. No. 150758.
An individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy,
notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that the second marriage is
void on the ground of psychological incapacity.