Pesca v.

Pesca
G.R. No. 136921 | April 17, 2001 | Vitug, J

Facts:
1. Petitioner Lorna Pesca and respondent Zosimo Pesca first met while on board an inter-island vessel bound
for Bacolod City. Eventually, they got married. They did not live together right away because Lorna was still a
college student and respondent, a seaman, had to leave the country on board a month after the marriage.
2. Their union begot four children: Ruhem, Rez, Ryan and Richie. It was a blissful marriage for them during the
two months of the year that they could stay together (when respondent was on vacation).
3. In 1998, Lorna noticed that his husband suddenly showed signs of “psychological incapacity” to perform his
marital covenant.
4. He became irresponsible, cruel, and violent. He would beat up his wife and children. At one time, he chased
Lorna with a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her.
5. On November 1992, Lorna and her children left the conjugal abode but eventually forgave respondent two
months after.
6. But on March 22, 1994, Lorna was beaten up again in front of their children. She submitted herself to
medical examination, which diagnosed her injuries as contusions and abrasions.
7. Lorna sued respondent for declaration of nullity of marriage invoking psychological incapacity. She also
sought the custody of her minor children and prayed for support pendente lite.
8. The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio on the basis of psychological incapacity.
9. On appeal, the CA reversed tis decision and declared the marriage valid.

Issue: W/N the guidelines for psychological incapacity stated in Santos v. CA and Republic v. Molina
should be taken in consideration of this case – YES.

- The term psychological incapacity as a ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36, FC
was explained in Santos v. CA. It should refer to no less than a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly
incognizant of the basic marital convinants.
- It was reiterated in Republic v. Molina, and added guidelines that would help the court in deciding w/n
psychological incapacity really exists.
- The doctrine of stare decisis is explained in Article 8 of the Civil Code. It exprewsses that judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
- The legal maxim “legis interpretado legis vim obtinet” means that the interepretation placed upon the
written law by a competent court has the force of law.
- The interpretation placed by the court establishes the legislative intent of the law. The latter as so
interpreted would thus constitute a a part of that law as of the date the statute was enacted.
- It is only when a prior ruling of thid Court finds itself later overruled, and a different view is adopted, that
the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine
and have acted in good faith under the rule of “lex prospicit, non respicit”
- Petitioner has failed to prove that her husband is psychologically incapcitated at the time of the
solemnization of marriage.

Ruling: CA decision affirmed. Petition denied.