Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
29Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
New Jurisprudence on Persons and Family Relations (Case Digests)

New Jurisprudence on Persons and Family Relations (Case Digests)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,606 |Likes:
Published by Monica Cajucom

More info:

Published by: Monica Cajucom on May 09, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

12/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
CIVIL LAW
Gerbert R. Corpuz
v.
Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor GeneralG.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010, THIRD DIVISION, (Brion,
 J.
)
The unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition theRTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decreeitself, after its authenticity and conformity with the alien's national law havebeen duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptiveevidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of theRules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments.
 This is a petition for review on
certiorari
seeking a direct appeal from thedecision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City.Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz is a naturalized Canadian citizen who marriedrespondent Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas but subsequently left for Canada due towork and other professional commitments. When he returned to the Philippines,he discovered that Sto. Tomas was already romantically involved with anotherman. This brought about the filing of a petition for divorce by Corpuz in Canadawhich was eventually granted by the Court Justice of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.A month later, the divorce decree took effect. Two years later, Corpuz has fallenin love with another Filipina and wished to marry her. He went to Civil RegistryOffice of Pasig City to register the Canadian divorce decree on his marriagecertificate with Sto. Tomas. However, despite the registration, an official of National Statistics Office informed Corpuz that the former marriage still subsistsunder the Philippine law until there has been a judicial recognition of theCanadian divorce decree by a competent judicial court in view of NSO CircularNo. 4, series of 1982. Consequently, he filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of dissolution of marriage with the RTC.However, the RTC denied the petition reasoning out that Corpuz cannot institutethe action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree because he is anaturalized Canadian citizen. It was provided further that Sto. Tomas was theproper party who can institute an action under the principle of Article 26 of theFamily Code which capacitates a Filipino citizen to remarry in case the alienspouse obtains a foreign divorce decree. Hence, this petition.ISSUE:Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Codegrants aliens like Corpuz the right to institute a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree.HELD:
Petition GRANTED. RTC Decision REVERSED.
 The Supreme Court qualifies the above conclusion - i.e., that the secondparagraph of Article 26 of the Family Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens -with the complementary statement that this conclusion is not sufficient basis todismiss Gerbert's petition before the RTC. In other words, the unavailability of 
 
CIVIL LAW
the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does notnecessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognitionof his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after itsauthenticity and conformity with the alien's national law have been duly provenaccording to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right infavor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court whichprovides for the effect of foreign judgments.A remand, at the same time, will allow other interested parties to opposethe foreign judgment and overcome a petitioner's presumptive evidence of aright by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud,or clear mistake of law or fact. Needless to state, every precaution must betaken to ensure conformity with our laws before a recognition is made, as theforeign judgment, once recognized, shall have the effect of 
res judicata
 
betweenthe parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Rosalino L. Marable
v.
Myrna F. MarableG.R. No. 178741, 17 January 2011, THIRD DIVISION, (Villarama, Jr.,
 J.
)
It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the like,between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychologicaldisorder itself.
Rosalino L. Marable and Myrna F. Marable were sweethearts since theywere still students at Arellano University. Later on in their relationship, theyeloped from their homes and married through civil rites before the mayor of  Tanay, Rizal. Within the same month after the civil wedding, a church weddingwas celebrated. They had five children. However, after years of being together,they started to fight verbally and even physically more frequently. This wasaggravated when they encountered problems with their daughter who wastransferred from one school to another because of misbehavior and then lateron became pregnant untimely. Rosalino’s way of of spoiling their children alsowas a cause of quarrels between him and his spouse, Myrna. Rosalino, who isbeginning to get worn out by their unhealthy relationship, had an affair withanother woman. When Myrna discovered it, Rosalino immediately ended therelationship with his mistress. The quarrels between them unfortunatelyworsened and this led to Rosalino’s departure from their home, leaving his wifeand children. After some time, he converted to Islam after going out with manywomen.Rosalino decided to legally end his marriage with Myrna so he filed apetition for absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of his psychologicalincapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage. He went to a clinicalpsychologist to be examined for the purpose of presenting evidence in court. Dr. Tayag, the clinical psychologist who examined him, concluded that Rosalino issuffering from “Anti-Social Personality Disorder” which manifests a pervasive
 
CIVIL LAW
pattern of social deviancy, rebelliousness, impulsivity, self-centeredness,deceitfulness, and lack of remorse. It was said to be rooted from Rosalino’schildhood hardships due to a dysfunctional family, deep feelings of rejection,and constant need for attention. Because of this finding, Dr. Tayag concludedthat Rosalino was psychologically incapacitated to perform his maritalobligations. The Regional Trial Court of Antipolo rendered judgment annulling themarriage of the Marable spouses. However, the Court of Appeals reversed thedecision of the RTC upon granting the appeal of the Office of the SolicitorGeneral which declared the marriage as still valid and subsisting. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence submitted was insufficient to provepsychological incapacity. Hence, this appeal.ISSUE:Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of theRTC which granted the annulment of marriage of the Marable spouses based onthe evidence of Rosalino’s psychological incapacity.HELD:
Appeal DENIED for lack of merit. CA Decision AFFIRMED.
In cases of annulment of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code,as amended, the psychological illness and its root cause must be proven to existfrom the inception of the marriage. Here, the appellate court correctly ruledthat the report of Dr. Tayag failed to explain the root cause of Rosalino’s allegedpsychological incapacity. The evaluation of Dr. Tayag merely made a generalconclusion that petitioner is suffering from an Anti-social Personality Disorderbut there was no factual basis stated for the finding that Rosalino is a sociallydeviant person, rebellious, impulsive, self-centered and deceitful.For sure, the spouses’ frequent marital squabbles
 
and differences inhandling finances and managing their business affairs, as well as their conflictson how to raise their children, are not manifestations of psychological incapacitywhich may be a ground for declaring their marriage void. Rosalino evenadmitted that despite their financial difficulties, they had happy momentstogether. Also, the records would show that the Rosalino acted responsiblyduring their marriage and in fact worked hard to provide for the needs of hisfamily, most especially his children. Their personal differences do not reflect apersonality disorder tantamount to psychological incapacity.Rosalino tried to make it appear that his family history of having awomanizer for a father, was one of the reasons why he engaged in extra-maritalaffairs during his marriage. However, it appears more likely that he becameunfaithful as a result of a general dissatisfaction with his marriage rather than apsychological disorder rooted in his personal history. His tendency to womanize,assuming he had such tendency, was not shown to be due to causes of apsychological nature that is grave, permanent and incurable. In fact, the records

Activity (29)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Pooja Murjani liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
M liked this
Cherry Castillo liked this
janicehipolito liked this
Ma Li liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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