Case Name: Pesca v. Pesca (April 200, Vitug, J.

Topic: Retroactivity of Laws (NCC 4) and Judicial Decisions (NCC 8)

Facts:

1975 - Petitioner Lorna G. Pesca and respondent Zosimo A. Pesca first met and got married the
same year . Their marriage begot 4 children
1988 - The year in which the Petitioner says Respondent started exhibiting signs of “psychological
incapacity”
22 March 1994 - Respondent assaulted petitioner for about half an hour in the presence of the
children. She was battered . The Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City convicted Respondent
and sentenced to eleven days of imprisonment.
Petitioner sued respondent before the Regional Trial Court for the declaration of nullity of
their marriage invoking psychological incapacity. Petitioner likewise sought the custody of her
minor children and prayed for support pendente lite.
January 1995 - Respondent, in his answer, denied the allegation that he was psychologically
incapacitated.
January 14,1995 - The Supreme Court comes out with a decision on Santos vs. CA , which
brings life to the term psychological incapacity.
15 November 1995 - The RTC rendered its decision declaring the marriage between petitioner
and respondent to be null and void ab initio on the basis of psychological incapacity on the part of
respondent and ordered the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.
1997 - The Supreme Court promulgates the decision in Republic vs Court of Appeals and
Molina which provided procedural guidelines in trying annulment based on psychological
incapacity, such as how “The burden of proof belongs to the plantiff” in proving psychological
incapacity, among other guidelines.
1998 The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and declared the marriage
between petitioner Pesca and respondent Pesca valid and subsisting. When the Petitioner filed the
appeal before the Supreme Court , Petitioner argued that the jurisprudence provided by the
cases on Santos vs Court of Appeals and which was reiterated in Republic vs Court of
Appeals and Molina must not be retroactively applied and , at most, is only advisory and not
mandatory with regards the definition of psychological incapacity. The application of the
Santos and Molina dicta should warrant only a remand of the case to the trial court for
further proceedings and not its dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not the guidelines in the cases of Santos and Molina with regards
psychological incapacity should be the ruling jurisprudence with regards this case.

Disposition: The Petition was Denied. Santos and Molina are applicable in this case.

Justification: The Santos and Molina cases provided guidelines on what is meant by psychological
incapacity. The Santos case give a high bar to psychological incapacity as “ the most serious cases
of personality disorders” which is “ clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated.” The Petitioner has failed to prove this bar of psychologic incapacity.
The "doctrine of stare decisis," ordained in Article 8 of the Civil Code, expresses that judicial
decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
“legis interpretado legis vim obtinet” – that the interpretation placed upon the written law by a
competent court has the force of law.
The Court also said “The interpretation or construction placed by the courts establishes the
contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. The latter as so interpreted and construed would thus
constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is enacted.” Thus, the argument of the
application of Santos and Molina being one of retroactive application does not stand because the
guidelines provided in Santos and Molina “constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is
enacted.”