Diana M. Barcelona v. Court of Appeals and Tadeo R.

Bengzon
GR. No. 130087
September 24, 2003
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
Private respondent Tadeo Bengzon filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage against petitioner
Diana Barcelona. A few months thereafter, he filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition which was
granted by the trial court.
Respondent Tadeo filed anew Petition for Annulment of Marriage. Petitioner Diane filed a
Motion to Dismiss based on two grounds: firstly, the second petition failed to state a case of
action; and, secondly, the petition violated the rule on forum shopping.
The trial court held that when the ground for dismissal of a complaint is the failure to state a
cause of action, the trial court determines such fact solely from the petition itself. Furthermore,
contrary to petitioners claim, a perusal of the allegations in the petition shows that petitioner
violated respondents right giving rise to a cause of action and that the respondent is not guilty of
forum shopping in filing the second petition.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court that the respondent is not guilty of
forum shopping because the elements of litis pendentia are lacking and the judgment did not
amount res judicata.
ISSUE/S:
Whether the allegations of the second petition for annulment of marriage sufficiently state a
cause of action;
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that petitioners contention is untenable. A cause of action is an act or
omission of the defendant in violation of the legal right of the plaintiff. A complaint states a
cause of action when it contains three essential elements: (1) a right in favour of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law it arises; (2) an obligation of the defendant to respect
such right; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant violates the right of the plaintiff.
Petitioner contended that the second petition fell short of the guidelines set forth in Santos and
Molina. According to her, the second petition was defective because it failed to allege the root
cause of the alleged psychological incapacity and it also failed to state that the alleged
psychological incapacity existed from the celebration of the marriage and that it is permanent

and incurable. Further, such petition is devoid of any reference of the grave nature of the illness
to bring about the disability of the petitioner to assume the essential obligation of marriage and
did not state the marital obligations which petitioner allegedly failed to comply due to
psychological incapacity.
Contrary to petitioners allegations, the Court found that the second petition sufficiently alleged a
cause of action. Such petition states the ultimate facts on which respondent bases his claim in
accordance with Section 1, Rule 8 of the old Rules of Court. Under the new Rules on Declaration
of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the complete facts
should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at
the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion net not be alleged. Corollary, there
is also no need to allege the root cause of the psychological incapacity. To sustain a motion to
dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not
exist rather than that a claim has been defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.