Ting vs. Velez-Ting, GR No. 166562, Mar.

31, 2009, 582 SCRA 694

Petitioner: Benjamin G. Ting

Respondent: Carmen M. Velez-Ting

Facts:

Benjamin and Carmen were married for 18 years with 6 children when Carmen
filed a verified petition on October 21, 1993 for the declaration of nullity of their
marriage on the ground of Benjamin’s psychological incapacity even before marriage
and was manifested only after solemnization. Each of the parties presented their expert
witnesses to support their claims but, since Benjamin was in South Africa, he was not
personally evaluated by the expert witnesses. CA initially ruled in favor of Benjamin
pursuant to Molina case but reconsidered Carmen’s argument that the mentioned case
should not be applied since it was decided on February 13, 1997, thus, retroactive
application would violate the rule on stare decisis.

Issue:

Whether or not the rule on stare decisis was violated when the Molina case was
applied retroactively.

Held:

No, Carmen’s argument was without merit. The principle of stare decisis, as
rooted in Article 8 of the Civil Code, states that interpretation or construction of a law
by courts constitutes a part of the law as of the date the statue is enacted. Nevertheless,
it is considered flexible and it is within the discretion of the court whether to follow or
depart from it. It was found that the totality of evidence presented was insufficient to
support a finding of psychological incapacity of Benjamin. Thus, the presumption of
validity of marriage was not amply rebutted. The decisions of the RTC and CA were
reversed.