Santos vs. CA (Leouel Santos v Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia Santos)
240 SCRA 20
FACTS:
Plaintiff Leouel Santos married defendant Julia Bedia on September 20, 1986. On May 18, 1988, Julia left for the U.S. She did not communicate with Leouel and did not return to the country. In 1991, Leouel filed with the RTC of Negros Oriental, a complaint for voiding of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC dismissed the complaint and the CA affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE:
Does the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with him, for more than five years constitute psychological incapacity?
HELD:
No, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband Leouel for more than five years does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence, and c) incurability
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem
Petition is denied.
240 SCRA 20
FACTS:
Plaintiff Leouel Santos married defendant Julia Bedia on September 20, 1986. On May 18, 1988, Julia left for the U.S. She did not communicate with Leouel and did not return to the country. In 1991, Leouel filed with the RTC of Negros Oriental, a complaint for voiding of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC dismissed the complaint and the CA affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE:
Does the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with him, for more than five years constitute psychological incapacity?
HELD:
No, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband Leouel for more than five years does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence, and c) incurability
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem
Petition is denied.