DECISION
The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cagayan City, dated
October 30, 2014, which made final and absolute and that the said marriage was
thereby dissolved.
On August 29, 2014, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18,
Cagayan City, a petition seeking the annulment of her marriage to private respondent
on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter. She alleged that from the time of
their marriage up to the time of the filing of the suit, private respondent failed to perform
his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household,
devoting most of his time engaging in drinking sprees with his friends. She averred that
private respondent was irresponsible, immature and unprepared for the duties of a
married life.
THE PETITION
Jane now comes to us via the present petition to challenge and seek the reversal
of the CA ruling based on the following arguments:
C ralaw1. The Court of Appeals went beyond what the law says, as it totally
disregarded the legal basis of the RTC in declaring the marriage null and void Tuason v.
Tuason (256 SCRA 158; to be accurate, should be Tuason v. Court of Appeals) holds
that "the finding of the Trial Court as to the existence or non-existence of petitioners
psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage is final and binding on us (the
Supreme Court); petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the trial courts factual findings
and evaluation of the testimonies of private respondents witnesses vis-à-vis petitioners
defenses are clearly and manifestly erroneous";
2. Article 36 of the Family Code did not define psychological incapacity; this
omission was intentional to give the courts a wider discretion to interpret the term
without being shackled by statutory parameters. Article 36 though was taken from
Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which gives three conditions that would
make a person unable to contract marriage from mental incapacity as follows:
(2) who suffer from grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential
matrimonial rights and duties which are to be mutually given and accepted;
(3) who are not capable of assuming the essential obligations of matrimony due
to causes of a psychic nature.cra|aw"
The RTC decision nullified OLIVIA DURAN TAVACO marriage with respondent
ORLANDO OLIVER ANDRES on the ground of psychological incapacity.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice