You are on page 1of 2

Barcelona vs. Court of Appeals DIANA M. BARCELONA, petitioner, COURT OF APPEAL an! TADEO R.

BEN"#ON, respondents Facts$ 1) Respondent Tadeo and petitioner Diana were legally married union begot five children 2) On 29 March 199 ! private respondent Tadeo R" #eng$on filed a %etition for &nnulment of Marriage against petitioner Diana M" #arcelona before RT' of (' #ranch )*" +) On 9 May 199 ! respondent Tadeo filed a Motion to ,ithdraw %etition which the trial court granted" -) On 21 .uly 199 ! respondent Tadeo filed anew a %etition for &nnulment of Marriage against petitioner Diana before RT' of (' #ranch 1/0" &llegations of 1ltimate 2acts made by the %laintiff3 a) %etition alleged that petitioner Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the celebration of their marriage to comply with the essential obligations of marriage and such incapacity subsists up to the present time" b) The petition alleged the non4complied marital obligations" c) During their marriage! they had fre5uent 5uarrels due to their varied upbringing" d) Respondent! coming from a rich family! was a disorgani$ed house6eeper and was fre5uently out of the house" e) ,hen the family had crisis due to several miscarriages suffered by respondent and the sic6ness of a child! respondent withdrew to herself and eventually refused to spea6 to her husband" f) On 7ovember 19**! the respondent! who was five month pregnant and on the prete8t of re4evaluating her feelings with petitioner! re5uested the latter to temporarily leave their con9ugal dwelling" g) :n his desire to 6eep peace in the family and to safeguard the respondent;s pregnancy! the petitioner was compelled to leave their con9ugal dwelling h) The respondent at the time of the celebration of their marriage was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligation of marriage and such incapacity subsisted up to and until the present time" i) <uch incapacity was conclusively found in the psychological e8amination conducted on the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent %etitioner Diana filed a Motion to Dismiss the second petition on two grounds" 2irst! the second petition fails to state a cause of action" <econd! it violates <upreme 'ourt &dministrative 'ircular 7o" /-49- =>'ircular 7o" /-4 9-?) on forum shopping" Respondent@s motion to dismiss was denied by RT'" MR was li6ewise denied" The respondent filed %etition for Certiorari! %rohibition and Mandamus before the 'ourt of &ppeal" The same was denied! hence this petition"

) 0) *) )) 9) I

UE$ ,hether the allegations of the second petition for annulment of marriage sufficiently state cause of action

RULIN"$ %E . The second petition states the ultimate facts =as already stated above) on which respondent bases his claim in accordance with <ection 1! Rule ) of the old Rules of 'ourt" 1ltimate facts refer to the principal! determinative! constitutive facts upon the e8istence of which the cause of action rests" The term does not refer to details of probative matter or particulars of evidence which establish the material elements" & petition under &rticle +0 of the 2amily 'ode shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration" T&e co'plete facts s&oul! alle(e t&e p&)s*cal 'an*festat*ons, *f an), as are *n!*cat*ve of ps)c&olo(*cal *ncapac*t) at t&e t*'e of t&e cele+rat*on of t&e 'arr*a(e +ut e,pert op*n*on nee! not +e alle(e!" =Amphasis supplied) %rocedural rules apply to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage" B10C The obvious effect of the new Rules providing that >expert opinion need not be alleged in the petition is that there is also no need to allege the root cause of the psychological incapacity" Only e8perts in the fields of neurological and behavioral sciences are competent to determine the root cause of psychological incapacity" <ince the new Rules do not re5uire the petition to allege e8pert opinion on the psychological incapacity! it follows that there is also no need to allege in the petition the root cause of the psychological incapacity" The second petition states a cause of action since it states the legal right of respondent Tadeo! the correlative obligation of petitioner Diana! and the act or omission of petitioner Diana in violation of the legal right" :n rendering this Decision! the <' is not pre9udging the main issue of whether the marriage is void based on &rticle +0 of the 2amily 'ode" The trial court must resolve this issue after trial on the merits where each party can present

evidence to prove their respective allegations and defenses" ,e are merely holding that! based on the allegations in the second petition! the petition sufficiently alleges a cause of action and does not violate the rule on forum shopping" Thus! the second petition is not sub9ect to attac6 by a motion to dismiss on these grounds"