Pesca Vs Pesca
Pesca Vs Pesca
Pesca Vs Pesca
*
G.R. No. 136921. April 17, 2001.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7db3328fe3f0228003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356
applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal maxim—“legis interpretado
legis vim
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
589
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7db3328fe3f0228003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356
590
VITUG, J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7db3328fe3f0228003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356
give him a chance to change. But, to her dismay, things did not so
turn out as expected. Indeed, matters became worse.
591
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7db3328fe3f0228003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356
there was legal basis to declare the marriage null and void and in
denying his motion to reopen the case.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and
declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent valid and
subsisting. The appellate court said:
“Definitely the appellee has not established the following: That the appellant
showed signs of mental incapacity as would cause him to be truly
incognitive of the basic marital covenant, as so provided for in Article 68 of
the Family Code; that the incapacity is grave, has preceded the marriage and
is incurable; that his incapacity to meet his marital responsibility is because
of a psychological, not physical illness; that the root cause of the incapacity
has been identified medically or clinically, and has been proven by an
expert; and that the incapacity is permanent and incurable in nature.
The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies in the plaintiff
and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation
1
of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.”
Petitioner, in her plea to this Court, would have the decision of the
Court of Appeals reversed on the thesis that the doctrine enunciated
2
in Santos vs. Court of Appeals, promulgated on 14 January 1995, as
well as the guidelines set out in Republic vs. Court of Appeals and
3
Molin, promulgated on 13 February 1997, should have no
retroactive application and, on the assumption that the Molina ruling
could be applied retroactively, the guidelines therein outlined should
be taken to be merely advisory and not mandatory in nature. In any
case, petitioner argues, 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.
Be that as it may, respondent submits, the appellate court did not
err in its assailed decision for there is absolutely no evidence that
has been shown to prove psychological incapacity on his part as the
term has been so defined in Santos.
Indeed, there is no merit in the petition.
________________
593
_______________
594
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 in
5
accordance therewith under the familiar rule of lex prospicit, non
respicit.”
The phrase “psychological incapacity,” borrowed from Canon
law, is an entirely novel provision in our statute books, and, until the
relatively recent enactment of the Family Code, the concept has
escaped jurisprudential attention. It is in Santos when, for the first
time, the Court has given life to the term. Molina, that followed, has
additionally provided procedural guidelines to assist the courts and
the parties in trying cases for annulment of marriages grounded on
psychological incapacity. Molina has strengthened, not overturned,
Santos.
At all events, petitioner has utterly failed, both in her allegations
in the complaint and in her evidence, to make out a case of
psychological incapacity on the part of respondent, let alone at the
time of solemnization of the contract, so as to warrant a declaration
of nullity of the marriage. Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility,
invoked by her, cannot be equated with psychological incapacity.
The Court reiterates its reminder that marriage is 6
an inviolable
social institution and the foundation of the family that the State
cherishes and protects. While the Court commiserates with
petitioner in her unhappy marital relationship with respondent,
totally terminating that relationship, however, may not necessarily
be the fitting denouement to it. In these cases, the law has not quite
given up, neither should we.
WHEREFORE, the herein petition is DENIED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
5 Unciano Paramedical College, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 285 (1993);
Tañada vs. Guingona, 235 SCRA 507 (1994); Columbia Pictures, Inc., vs. Court of
Appeals, 261 SCRA 144 (1996).
6 See Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution.
595
Petition denied.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7db3328fe3f0228003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7db3328fe3f0228003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8