Annulment Case (psychological
incapacity)
Republic v CA and Quintos (G.R. No.
159594)
Facts:
Eduardo
and Catalina were married. The couple were not blessed with a child because
Catalina had a hysterectomy following her second marriage.
Eduardo
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage citing psychological
incapacity as a ground. He alleged that Catalina always left the house without
his consent; that she engaged in petty arguments with him; that Catalina
constantly refused to give in to his sexual needs; that she spent most of her
time gossiping with neighbors instead of caring for their adopted daughter;
that she gambled away all his remittances as an overseas worker; and that she
abandoned the conjugal home with her paramour.
To
support his claim, he presented the results of a neuro-psychiatric evaluation
conducted by Dr. Annabelle Reyes stating that Catalina exhibited traits of a
borderline personality disorder that was no longer treatable.
Catalina
did not appear during trial but admitted her psychological incapacity. However,
she denied flirting with different men and abandoning the conjugal home.
Issue: Whether or not Catalina was psychologically incapacitated.
Ruling:
No.
Marriage remains valid.
Psychological
incapacity is an incapacity/inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic
marital obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal or neglect in
the performance of marital obligations.
In
Republic v CA(Molina), the Supreme Court has established guidelines involving
the nullity of marriage based on the ground of psychological incapacity. These
were not met in the instant case since the gravity; root cause and incurability
of Catalina's purported psychological incapacity were not sufficiently established.
Catalina's
behavior of frequent gossiping, leaving the house without Eduardo's consent,
refusal to do household chores, and take care of their adopted daughter were
not established. Eduardo presented no other witness to corroborate these
allegations.
Also,
the RTC and CA heavily relied on Dr. Reyes' evaluation despite any factual
foundation to support this claim. The report was vague about the root cause,
gravity and incurability of the incapacity.Even the testimony of Dr. Reyes
stated a general description of borderline personality disorder which did not
explain the root cause as to why Catalina was diagnosed as such. They did not
specify the acts or omissions or the gravity which constituted the disorder.
What was established was that Catalina was childish and immature. Dr. Reyes had
only one interview with Catalina. This lacks the depth and objectivity of an
expert assessment.
Catalina's
immaturity and apparent refusal to perform her marital obligations do not
constitute psychological incapacity alone. It must be shown that such immature
acts were manifestations of a disordered personality that made the spouse
completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
Writ of Habeas Data
Castillo vs. Cruz - GR No. 182165
Facts:
Respondent
Spouses Cruz, leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos, refused
to vacate the property, despite demands by the lessor Provincial Government of
Bulacan which intended to utilize it for local projects. Cases were filed by
both parties to enforce their rights over the property. The pertinent case
among the filed cases was the issuance by the MTC an alias Writ of Demolition
in favor of the Province. Respondents filed a motion for TRO in the RTC, which was
granted. However, the demolition was already implemented before the TRO issuance.
Petitioners
Police Superintendent Felixberto Castillo et al., who were deployed by the City
Mayor in compliance with a memorandum issued by Governor Joselito R. Mendoza
instructing him to “protect, secure and maintain the possession of the
property,” entered the property.
Amanda
and her co-respondents refused to turn over the property, however. Insisting that
the RTC Order of Permanent Injunction enjoined the Province from repossessing
it, they shoved petitioners, forcing the latter to arrest them and cause their
indictment for direct assault, trespassing and other forms of light threats.
Thus,
respondents filed a Motion for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data.
Issue: 1. Whether or not Writ Amparo and
Habeas Data is proper toproperty rights; and,
2. Whether or notAmparo and Habeas Data is
proper whenthere is a criminal case already filed.
Ruling:
1.
Section 1 of the Rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data provides that the
coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty
and security, and the writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful
acts or omissions. Secretary of National Defense v. Manaloteaches: “As the
Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of “extralegalkillings”
and “enforced disappearances.” Tapuzv. Del Rosario also teaches: “What it is
not is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial.
Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.”
To
thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet the
threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission. Evidently, the present
controversy arose out of a property dispute between the Provincial Government and
respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between the acts complained of and
its effect on respondents’ right to life, liberty and security, the Court will
not delve on the propriety of petitioners’ entry into the property.
It
bears emphasis that respondents’ petition did not show any actual violation,
imminent or continuing threat to their life, liberty and security. Bare allegations
of petitioners will not suffice to prove entitlement to the remedy of the writ
of amparo. No undue confinement or detention was present. In fact, respondents were
even able to post bail for the offenses a day after their arrest.
2. Respondents’ filing of the petitions for
writs of amparo and habeas data should have been barred, for criminal
proceedings against them had commenced after they were arrested in flagrante delicto
and proceeded against in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court. Validity of the arrest or the proceedings conducted thereafter is a
defense that may be set up by respondents during trial and not before a
petition for writs of amparoand habeas data.
No comments:
Post a Comment