Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Icylove Genio Case Digest in Civ law 1

Icylove Genio Case Digest in Civ law 1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 77|Likes:
Published by Icylove Genio

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Icylove Genio on Jul 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Republic V. Quintaro-HamanoMay 20, 2004428 Scra 735Facts:On June 17, 1996, respondent Lotita Quintaro-Hamano filed a complaint fordeclaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband Toshio Hamano, a Japanesenational on the ground of psychological incapacity.Respondent alleged that in October 1986, she gave birth to a child and they gotmarried here in the Philippines. Unknown to respondent, Toshio waspsychological incapacity to assume marital obligation, which incapacity becomemanifest only after marriage. One month after their marriage Toshio return toJapan. Toshio stopped giving financial support and did not bother to visit therespondent and their child when he came to the Philippines.Issue:Whether the respondent was able to prove psychological incapacity of Toshiowith the guidelines laid down in the Molina case?Ruling:The mere abandonment of Toshio of his family and his insensitivity to them didnot automatically constitute psychological incapacity. His behavior towards themindicates his simple inadequacy in the personality disorder part of spouse failingshort of responsible expectation. The respondent failed to prove any severe andincurable personality disorder on the part of Toshio, in accordance with theguidelines set in Molina.The root cause of psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedent and incurability. The totality of evidence presented fall shortto prove psychological incapacity. We find no distinction between the alienspouse and a Filipino. The medical and clinical rules to identified psychologicalincapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior in general,hence, the norms for determining psychological incapacity should apply to anyperson regardless of nationality.
Barcelona V. CA and Tadeo bengzonSeptember 24, 2003GR No. 130087Facts:On March 29, 1995 respondent Tadeo Bengzon filed a petition for annulment of marriage against Diana Barcelona. On May 9, 1995 Tadeo filed a motion towithdraw petition on which the trial court granted.On July 1995, Tadeo filed anew petition for annulment of marriage. Diana filed amotion to dismiss based on two grounds; failure to state a cause of action andforum shopping. The court denied the motion. The case was elevated to the courtof appeals. The court of appeals held that there was no violation of forumshopping and there is a cause of action.Issue:Whether allegations of second petition for annulment of marriage sufficientlystate of cause of action; whether or not there is violation of forum shopping?Ruling:The court finds that the second petition sufficiently alleges a cause of action. Thepetition alleged that the respondent and petitioner were legally married and theunion begot five children and he further alleges that the petitioner waspsychological incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriageand such incapacity subsist up to the present time.The second petition states ultimate a fact on which respondent alleges the causeof action in accordance with the Sec 1, Rule 8 of the rules of court. The firstpetition was dismissed without prejudice at the instance of the respondentTadeo, clearly, there is no litis pendencia since the respondent Tadeo had alreadywithdrawn and caused the dismissal of the first petition, when he subsequentlyfiled the second petition, neither is there res judicata because the dismissal orderwas not decision on merits but dismissal without prejudice.Choa V. ChoaNovember 26, 2002392 Scra 641
 Facts:Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa were married on March 15, 1981. In 1993, Alfonsofiled an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of Leni
alleged ‘psychological incapacity’. Alfonso claimed that the filing be Leni of series
of charges against him is proof of her psychological incapacity. These chargesinclude complaints for perjury, false testimony, concubine and deportation. Hecontended that this is very abnormal for a wife, instead of protecting the nameand integrity of her husband, had acted to the contrary. He also complainedabout her lack of attention to their children, immaturity and lack of procreativesexuality. Alfonso presented at the trial an expert witness to testify to prove thepsychological incapacity of Leni. When Alfonso rested his case, Leni filed ademurrer to evidence. The trial court denied demurrer. Alfonso went up to the CAwhich upheld the trial court, hence, this petition.Issue:Did Alfonso make out a case of psychological incapacity?Ruling:No, he did not. The evidence presented by Alfonso is grossly insufficient tosupport a finding of psychological incapacity. It is the height of absurdity andinequality to condemn her as psychological incapacitated to fulfil her maritalobligations simply because she filed cases against him. Even if taken as true, thealleged lack of attention to their children, immaturity and lack of intention of procreate sexually, singly or collectively, does not constitute psychologicalincapacity. The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that he and hiswife could not get along with each other. Mere showing of irreconcilabledifferences and conflicting personality in no wise constitute psychologicalincapacity.Republic V. CA and MolinaFebruary 13, 1997240 Scra 198Facts:

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->