CASE DIGESTS for cases 54 and 56 in Persons and Family Relations

Prepared by Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD1

CASE No. 54:
[G.R. No. 91114. September 25, 1992.]
NELLY LIM, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL D. VICTORIO, as Presiding
Judge of RTC-Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53, and JUAN SIM (or LIM, not sure), respondents.
PONENTE: Davide, Jr., J.
FACTS:

Juan Sim (or Lim) filed with RTC of Pangasinan a petition for annulment of marriage
on the ground that Nelly Lim has been allegedly suffering from schizophrenia "before,
during and after the marriage and until the present."
After 4 witnesses, including himself, were presented, they asked to present Dr. Lydia
Acampado, Chief of the Female Services of the National Mental Hospital and
Psychiatrist of Nelly.
Nelly contested that the testimony sought to be elicited from Dr. Acampado is
privileged since she contracted her service as a professional. Juan argued that Dr.
Acampado will stand as an expert witness and would not testify on any information
acquired while attending to the Nelly in a professional capacity.
The RTC denied the motion but reminded the counsel of Nelly to interpose his
objection once it becomes apparent that the testimony sought to be elicited is
covered by the privileged communication rule. Dr. Acampado was asked only of
hypothetical questions in the trial and Nellys counsel did not object during the
proceedings.
Nelly then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the testimony of Dr.
Acampado. Denied.

ISSUE: WON Dr. Acampado can stand as an expert witness in a case of her client
HELD: One who claims the said privilege must prove the presence of its requisites:
1. the privilege is claimed in a civil case;
2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
3. such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his
professional capacity;
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and
5. the information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation
(formerly character) of the patient.
These requisites conform with the four (4) fundamental conditions necessary for the
establishment of a privilege against the disclosure of certain communications, to wit:
1.

The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be

disclosed.

2.

This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory

maintenance of the relation between the parties.
The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be
sedulously fostered
The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the
communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct
disposal of litigation.

3.
4.

*Dr. Acampado only stood as an expert witness and did not disclose any confidential
information of their professional transaction. Nelly failed to prove her claims.
**just cant find where psychological incapacity plays in this case. Kung baga sa pelikula,
cameo role lang po sya

CASE No. 56
[G.R. No. 167109. February 6, 2007.]
FELICITAS AMOR-CATALAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, ORLANDO B.
CATALAN and MEROPE E. BRAGANZA, respondents.
PONENTE: Ynares-Santiago, J.
FACTS:

Felicitas Amor-Catalan married Orlando on June 4, 1950 in Mabini, Pangasinan. They

migrated to the USA and allegedly became naturalized citizens. After 38 years of
marriage, Felicitas and Orlando divorced in April 1988.
Two month later, Orlando married Merope.
Merope had a prior subsisting marriage with Eusebio Bristol, Felicitas filed a petition
for declaration of nullity of marriage with damages in the RTC of Dagupan City
against Orlando and Merope.
Orlando and Merope filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action
as Felicitas was allegedly not a real party-in-interest. Denied. The trial went on.
RTC rendered decision in favor of Felicitas (Orlando and Meropes marriage declared
null and void). Orlando and Merope appealed the decision to CA. CA reversed the
decision.

ISSUE: WON Felicitas has standing in filing the case against Orlando and Merope when they
are allegedly divorced already
HELD: The alleged divorce of Felicitas and Orlando should be proven first before the issue
could be really decided. If they (Felicitas and Orlando) are divorced, then Felicitas doesnt
have the standing. It should also be noted whether the divorce decree is of a limited divorce
(which will give Felicitas the standing) or if the foreign law restricts Orlando of re-marrying.