FACTS:
On September 7, 1975, Erlinda Matias, 16 years old, married Avelino Parangan
Dagdag, 20 years old, at the Iglesia Filipina Independent Church in Cuyapo,
Nueva Ecija. The marriage certificate was issued by the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of on October
20, 1988. Erlinda and Avelino begot two children. The birth
certificates were issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of the
Municipality of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija also on October 20, 1988. A week after
the wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation. He
would disappear for months, suddenly re-appear for a few months, and then
disappear again. During the times when he was with his family, he indulged
in drinking sprees with friends and would return home drunk. He would
force his wife to submit to sexual intercourse and if she refused, he would
inflict physical injuries to her.
In October 1993, he left his family again and that was the last that
they heard from him. Erlinda learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some
crime, and that he escaped from jail and remains at large to-date. In July
1990, Erlinda filed with the RTC of Olongapo City a petition for judicial
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity. Since Avelino could not be located, summons was served by
publication in the Olongapo News, a newspaper of general circulation. On
the date set for presentation of evidence, only Erlinda and her counsel
appeared. Erlinda testified and presented her sister-in-law as her only
witness.
The trial court issued an Order giving the investigating prosecutor until
January 2, 1991 to manifest in writing whether or not he would present
controverting evidence, and stating that should he fail to file said
manifestation, the case would be deemed submitted for decision. The
Investigating Prosecutor conducted an investigation and found that there was no
collusion between the parties.
However, he intended to intervene in the case to avoid fabrication of
evidence. Without waiting for the investigating prosecutor’s
manifestation, the trial court declared the marriage of Erlinda and Avelino
void under Article 36. The investigating prosecutor filed a Motion to Set
Aside Judgment on the ground that the decision was prematurely rendered since
he was given until January 2, 1991 to manifest whether he was presenting controverting
evidence. The Office of the Solicitor General likewise filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the decision on the ground that the same is not in
accordance with the evidence and the law. Since the trial court denied the
Motion for Reconsideration, the Solicitor General appealed to the CA. The
CA affirmed the decision of the trial court holding that “Avelino Dagdag is
psychologically incapacitated not only because he failed to perform the duties
and obligations of a married person but because he is emotionally immature and
irresponsible, an alcoholic, and a criminal.”
ISSUE:
Did the CA correctly declare the marriage as null and void under Article 36 of
the Family Code, on the ground that the husband suffers from psychological
incapacity, as he is emotionally immature and irresponsible, a habitual
alcoholic, and a fugitive from justice?
HELD:
Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for
annulment of a marriage, depends crucially, more than in any field of law, on
the facts of the case. Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori
assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts.
In regard to psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage, it
is trite to say that no case is on “all fours” with another case. The trial
judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court
must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the
trial court.
In REPUBLIC VS. MOLINA (268 SCRA 198), the Court laid down the GUIDELINES in
the interpretation of Article 36 of the Family Code.
Taking into consideration these guidelines, it is evident that Erlinda failed
to comply with the above-mentioned evidentiary requirements. Erlinda failed to
comply with guideline number 2 which requires that the root cause of
psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically proven by experts,
since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged
psychological incapacity of her husband. Further, the allegation that the
husband is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently proven. In fact, the
crime for which he was arrested was not even alleged. The investigating
prosecutor was likewise not given an opportunity to present controverting
evidence since the trial court’s decision was prematurely rendered.
No comments:
Post a Comment