Republic of the Philippines, petitioner,
vs. Erlinda Matias Dagdag, respondent.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Facts: Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag and begot two children. Avelino would disappear for months
without explanation and attend to drinking sprees with friends and return home
drunk when with the family; forced his wife to have sexual intercourse
and if she resisted, would inflict injure to the latter. He
left his family again and never heard of him. Erlinda
was constrained to look for a job to fend for themselves. Erlinda
then learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime, and
that he escaped from jail who remains at-large at date.Erlinda filed for judicial declaration
of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article
36 of the Family Code. The
trial court rendered a decision declaring the marriage void under Artcile 36 of
the Family Code. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals raising that the
lower court erred in declaring the apellee's marriage to Avelino Dagdag null
and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter, pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code, the psychological incapacity of the nature
contemplated by the law not having been proven to exist. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court
Issue: Whether or not immaturity and irresponsibility, habitual alcoholic, and a
fugitive from justice constitutes psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code to declare the marriage null and void.
Ruling: No. The ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and
Molina case is reiterated herein in which
the Court laid down the following GUIDELINES in the interpretation and application
of Article 36 of the Family Code:
(1) The burden of proof to show the
nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
(2) The root cause of the
psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations
and/or symptoms may be physical.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to
be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.
(4) Such incapacity must also
be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other
spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough
to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations
of marriage.
(6) The essential marital
obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as
well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children
(7) Interpretations given by the
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect
by our courts.
(8) The trial court must order the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel
for the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment