Subject: Legal Research
Topic: Psychological Incapacity
Title: Lucita Estrella Hernandez, petitioner,
v.
Court of Appeals, and Mario C. Hernandez, respondents,
GR No. 126010, Dec. 08, 1999 (Second Division)
Facts
(describe events bet. the parties leading to the litigation, how the case came before the court that’s now deciding it, who the plaintiff and defendant are, basis for plaintiff’s suit, ruling whether the court affirmed or reversed the case)
Lucita Estrella Hernandez and Mario C. Hernandez were married and had three children. Lucita, petitioner, filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City a petition for annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent, Mario. The petitioner claimed that the respondent failed to perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household. Respondent engaged in drinking sprees, gambled and womanized at which came a point that he had an illegitimate child.
Petitioner also added in her petition full custody of her three children, Php 9,000 monthly financial support for the children, sole ownership of the parcel of land purchased during their marriage as well as of the jeep which private respondent took when he left his family.
RTC dismissed the petition. This decision was affirmed by the CA.
Issue
(WoN, question that the court must decide to resolve, rule of law that governs the dispute)
Whether or not the respondent was psychologically incapacitated at the time of his marriage to the petitioner
Ruling
(answer to the issue, supported by the court’s reasoning explaining and supporting the decision)
The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. The respondent’s habitual alcoholism, womanizing and cohabitation with those he’s had extra-marital affairs with do not constitute psychological incapacity. Art. 36 of the Family Code requires that incapacity must be psychological, not physical, although the manifestations or symptoms are physical.
As for the other claims prayed for by the petitioner, the Court believed that those should be litigated in a separate proceeding for legal separation, dissolution of property regime, and/or custody of children.
Judgment affirmed.
Topic: Psychological Incapacity
Title: Lucita Estrella Hernandez, petitioner,
v.
Court of Appeals, and Mario C. Hernandez, respondents,
GR No. 126010, Dec. 08, 1999 (Second Division)
Facts
(describe events bet. the parties leading to the litigation, how the case came before the court that’s now deciding it, who the plaintiff and defendant are, basis for plaintiff’s suit, ruling whether the court affirmed or reversed the case)
Lucita Estrella Hernandez and Mario C. Hernandez were married and had three children. Lucita, petitioner, filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City a petition for annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent, Mario. The petitioner claimed that the respondent failed to perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household. Respondent engaged in drinking sprees, gambled and womanized at which came a point that he had an illegitimate child.
Petitioner also added in her petition full custody of her three children, Php 9,000 monthly financial support for the children, sole ownership of the parcel of land purchased during their marriage as well as of the jeep which private respondent took when he left his family.
RTC dismissed the petition. This decision was affirmed by the CA.
Issue
(WoN, question that the court must decide to resolve, rule of law that governs the dispute)
Whether or not the respondent was psychologically incapacitated at the time of his marriage to the petitioner
Ruling
(answer to the issue, supported by the court’s reasoning explaining and supporting the decision)
The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. The respondent’s habitual alcoholism, womanizing and cohabitation with those he’s had extra-marital affairs with do not constitute psychological incapacity. Art. 36 of the Family Code requires that incapacity must be psychological, not physical, although the manifestations or symptoms are physical.
As for the other claims prayed for by the petitioner, the Court believed that those should be litigated in a separate proceeding for legal separation, dissolution of property regime, and/or custody of children.
Judgment affirmed.