BESO VS. DAGUMAN

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000

Complainant: Zenaida S. Beso

Respondent: Judge Juan Daguman, MCTC, Sta. Margarita-Tarangan, Pagsanjan, Samar

Ponente: J. Ynares-Santiago

Facts:

Judge stands charged with Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority by Beso.  In the Complaint-Affidavit

dated December 12, 1997, the complainant charged judge with solemnizing marriage outside of his

jurisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract with the

office of the Local Civil Registrar with the following facts:

(a) On August 28, 1997, the complainant and complainant’s fiancée, Bernardito A. Yman, got married

under the solemnization of the respondent in the respondent’s residence in Calbayog City, Samar;

(b) That after the wedding, Yman abandoned the complainant;

(c) That when Yman left, the complainant inquired to the City Civil Registrar to inquire regarding her

Marriage Contract.  The complainant found out that her marriage was not registered;

(d) The complainant wrote to the respondent to inquire and the former found out that all the copies were

taken by Yman and no copy was retained by the respondent.

The respondent averred with the following rationale:

(a) Respondent solemnized the marriage because of the urgent request of the complainant and

Yman.  He also believed that being a Filipino overseas worker, the complainant deserved more than

ordinary official attention under present Government policy;

(b) Respondent was also leaning on the side of liberality of the law so that it may be not too expensive

and complicated for citizens to get married;

(c) Respondent’s failure to file the marriage contract was beyond his control because Yman absconded

with the missing copies of the marriage certificate.

(d) Respondent, however, tried to recover custody of the missing documents.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in an evaluation report dated, August 11, 1998 found the

respondent Judge “…committed non-feasance in office” and recommended that he be fined Five

Thousand Pesos (P5,000).

Issues:

The issues raised in this complaint are:

(1) Whether or not the respondent solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction; and

(2) Whether or not the respondent committed negligence by not retaining a copy and not registering the

complainant’s marriage before the office of the Local Civil Registrar.

 

Held:

(1) Yes.  The judge solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction. Article 7 of the Family Code

provides that marriage may be solemnized by, “Any incumbent member of the judiciary with the court’s

jurisdiction”.  In relation thereto, according to Article 8 of the Family Code, there are only three instances

with which a judge may solemnize a marriage outside of his jurisdiction:

(1.1) when either or both the contracting parties is at the point of death;

(1.2) when the residence of either party is located in a remote place;

(1.3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may

be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.

In this case, non of the three instances is present. 

(2) Yes.  The judge committed negligence.  Pursuant to Article 23 of the Family code, such duty to

register the marriage is the respondent’s duty.  The same article provides, “It shall be the duty of the

person solemnizing the marriage… to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not later

than fifteen (15) days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was

solemnized.  Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer

transmitting copies of the marriage certificate.  The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the

quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate, the original of the marriage license, and in proper cases,

the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in a place other than

those mentioned in Article 8.”.

The recommendation of the OCA stands.

Republic vs. CA and Molina

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997

FACTS:

The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the

respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of

psychological incapacity.  The couple got married in 1985, after a year,

Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband

and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered

his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest

with his wife in regard to their finances.  In 1986, the couple had an intense

quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged.  Roridel quit her work

and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later,

Reynaldo left her and their child.  Since then he abandoned them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological

incapacity.

HELD:

The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid.  What

constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable

differences and confliction personalities.  It is indispensable that the parties

must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital

responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness.  Reynaldo’s action

at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would

comprise grounds for psychological incapacity.  The evidence shown by Roridel

merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and

had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its

incurability.  In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable

psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as

psychological incapacity.

The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity

laid set forth in this case: burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff

root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of marital obligations of marriage such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be respected court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the state.

SANTOS VS. CA AND BEDIA-SANTOSMARCH 28, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

SANTOS vs. CA AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS

G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995

FACTS: Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met

Julia in Iloilo. The two got married in 1986 before a municipal trial

court followed shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. The couple

lived with Julia’s parents at the J. Bedia Compound. Julia gave birth

to a baby boy in 1987 and was named as Leouel Santos Jr.

Occasionally, the couple will quarrel over a number of things aside

from the interference of Julia’s parents into their family affairs.

Julia left in 1988 to work in US as a nurse despite Leouel’s pleas to

dissuade her. Seven months after her departure, she called her

husband and promised to return home upon the expiration of her

contract in July 1989 but she never did. Leouel got a chance to visit

US where he underwent a training program under AFP, he

desperately tried to locate or somehow get in touch with Julia but all

his efforts were of no avail.

Leouel filed a complaint to have their marriage declared void under

Article 36 of the Family Code. He argued that failure of Julia to

return home or to communicate with him for more than 5 years are

circumstances that show her being psychologically incapacitated to

enter into married life.

ISSUE: Whether their marriage can be considered void under Article

36 of the Family Code.

HELD:

The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of

psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personal

disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability

to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This condition

must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.

Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even

desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor

society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every

individual problem. Wherefore, his petition was denied.

__________

Notes:

psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)

juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be

grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying

out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the

history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt

manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be

incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond

the means of the party involved.

FROM ATTY BAYANI^^

In 1990, Leo married Marie, the latter being ten years his senior. In 1993, Leo filed to annul

the marriage due to Marie’s PI. Leo claimed that Marie persistently lied about herself, the

people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or

things. She would claim that she is a psychologist but she is not. She’d claim she is a singer

with the company Blackgold and that she is the latter’s number 1 money maker but she’s

not. She’d also spend lavishly as opposed to her monthly income. She fabricates things and

people only to serve her make believe world. Leo presented an expert that proved Marie’s

PI. Marie denied all Leo’s allegations and also presented an expert to prove her case. The

RTC ruled against Marie and annulled the marriage. The Matrimonial  Tribunal of the church

also annulled the marriage and was affirmed by the Vatican’s Roman Rata. The CA

reversed the decision hence the appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not PI is attendant to the case.

HELD: Yes, PI is attendant. The guidelines established in the Molina case is properly

established in the case at bar.

The SC also emphasized what fraud means as contemplated in Art 45 (3) of the FC vis a

vis Art 46 of the FC. In PI, the misrepresentation done by Marie points to her inadequacy to

cope with her marital obligations, kindred to psychological incapacity. In Art 45 (3), marriage

may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, and Article 46 which

enumerates the circumstances constituting fraud under the previous article, clarifies that “no

other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall

constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.” These

provisions of Art 45 (3) and Art 46 cannot be applied in the case at bar because the

misrepresentations done by Marie is not considered as fraud but rather such

misrepresentations constitute her aberrant behaviour which further constitutes PI. Her

misrepresentations are not lies sought to vitiate Leo’s consent to marry her. Her

misrepresentations are evidence that Marie cannot simply distinguish fiction/fantasy from

reality which is so grave and it falls under the fourth guideline laid down in the Molina Case.

 

SYNTHESIZING MARABLE VS. MARABLE AND ITS CASE DIGESTTitle:

 ROSALINO L. MARABLE, Petitioner, vs. MYRNA F. MARABLE, Respondent, G.R. No. 178741, promulgated on January 17, 2011.

639 SCRA 557, 567

Legal Issue:Is psychological evaluation a necessity for the establishment of psychological incapacity of a

spouse for declaration of nullity of marriage?

Legal   Facts:In 1967 petitioner Rosalino Marable and respondent Myrna Marable were students in Arellano University who became lovers after they met in a bus. They got married on December 19, 1970, in civil rites of Tanay, Rizal before Mayor Antonio C. Esguerra, and that following day is a church wedding at the Chapel of Muntinlupa Bilibid Prison. Somehow they were blessed with 5 children but several years after the marriage their relationship got soured with frequent quarrels as a consequence, their daughter rebelled and unexpectedly she got pregnant at her young age. Eventually, the petitioner had incessant marital conflicts leading to withdrawal of marital obligations. Rosalino Marable filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage on the ground of his own psychological incapacity. In support of his petition, petitioner presented Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, a clinical psychologist, who reported that petitioner is suffering from "Antisocial Personality Disorder," characterized by a pervasive pattern of social deviancy, rebelliousness, impulsivity, self-centeredness, deceitfulness and lack of remorse which rooted in deep feelings of rejection starting from the family to peers, and that his experiences have made him so self-absorbed for needed attention. The RTC granted the petition; on the other hand the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC thus judgment of the Court denied the appeal.

Holding and Reasoning:

In this case yes but the examination still doesn’t corroborate the contention of psychological incapacity. The Court said that the petitioner was able to prove infidelity on his part and the existence of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities apparently, it doesn’t constitute psychological incapacity. Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage . The CA did not err in declaring the marriage of petitioner and respondent as valid and subsisting. The totality of the evidence presented is insufficient to establish petitioner’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his essential marital obligations.

Policing:Psychological examination by means of getting the emotional quotient through test must be

properly observed in every couple prior to marriage. Greater advantage if sets of personality and psychological examination after attending marriage seminars should be one of the additional requisites prior to the solemnization and in order to prevent any future relationship hostilities before entering marriage life.

Synthesis:

In Marable v. Marable, 639 SCRA 557, 567, The Supreme Court ruled that conflicting personalities do not constitute psychological incapacity. Furthermore, the provision in Article 36 does not stress either of its characteristic as to the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability, indicating such guidelines that the burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff to which its medical or psychological examination clearly explains or bring about such totality of evidence in establishing psychological incapacity.

sfsdf