Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 796 views

    Malilin vs. Jamesolamin G.R. No. 192718 Digested

    Uploaded by

    Sherwin Delfin Cinco
    Robert filed for annulment of his marriage to Luz, claiming she suffered from psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the annulment but the appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court denied the petition for annulment. Robert failed to establish Luz's incapacity through evidence beyond his own testimony. Psychological incapacity requires an inability to assume marital obligations, not just refusal or neglect. There was also no psychological examination of Luz. The burden was on Robert to clearly prove through evidence that the marriage was invalid due to a grave psychological illness, which he failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Malilin vs. Jamesolamin G.R. No. 192718 Digested

    Uploaded by

    Sherwin Delfin Cinco
    796 views1 page
    Robert filed for annulment of his marriage to Luz, claiming she suffered from psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the annulment but the appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court denied the petition for annulment. Robert failed to establish Luz's incapacity through evidence beyond his own testimony. Psychological incapacity requires an inability to assume marital obligations, not just refusal or neglect. There was also no psychological examination of Luz. The burden was on Robert to clearly prove through evidence that the marriage was invalid due to a grave psychological illness, which he failed to do.

    Original Description:

    Malilin vs. Jamesolamin G.R. No. 192718 Digested

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Robert filed for annulment of his marriage to Luz, claiming she suffered from psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the annulment but the appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court denied the petition for annulment. Robert failed to establish Luz's incapacity through evidence beyond his own testimony. Psychological incapacity requires an inability to assume marital obligations, not just refusal or neglect. There was also no psychological examination of Luz. The burden was on Robert to clearly prove through evidence that the marriage was invalid due to a grave psychological illness, which he failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    796 views1 page

    Malilin vs. Jamesolamin G.R. No. 192718 Digested

    Uploaded by

    Sherwin Delfin Cinco
    Robert filed for annulment of his marriage to Luz, claiming she suffered from psychological incapacity. The trial court granted the annulment but the appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court denied the petition for annulment. Robert failed to establish Luz's incapacity through evidence beyond his own testimony. Psychological incapacity requires an inability to assume marital obligations, not just refusal or neglect. There was also no psychological examination of Luz. The burden was on Robert to clearly prove through evidence that the marriage was invalid due to a grave psychological illness, which he failed to do.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MALLILIN v.

    JAMESOLAMIN
    G.R. No. 192718
    Facts:
    Robert Malilin and Luz Jamesolamin were married on September 6, 1972 and begot three
    children. The petitioner filed a complaint for nullity of marriage on the grounds that the respondent
    allegedly suffered from psychological and mental incapacity at the time of the marriage celebration,
    unpreparedness to enter into such marital life, and to comply with its essential obligations and
    responsibilities. . Such incapacity became even more apparent during their marriage when Luz exhibited
    clear manifestation of immaturity, irresponsibility, deficiency of independent rational judgment, and
    inability to cope with the heavy and oftentimes demanding obligation of a parent.
    He testified that Luz was already living in California, USA, and married an American. While they
    were still together though, Robert disclosed that respondent did not perform responsibilities of being a
    housewife like keeping the house in order, preparing meals, washing clothes and taking care of the
    children. He also stated that she dated several men and contracted loans without his knowledge.
    In turn Luz filed her answer with a counterclaim, averring that it was Robert who manifested
    psychological incapacity.
    On September 20, 2002, the Regional Trial Court had rendered a decision declaring the marriage
    null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Luz as she failed to comply with the
    essential marital obligations but the Court of Appeals, in its November 20, 2009 Decision, reversed the
    RTC decision.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the totality of the evidence adduced proves that Luz was psychologically
    incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their
    marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
    Held:

    The petition is DENIED.


    The Supreme Court stated that Roberts evidence failed to establish the psychological incapacity of Luz.
    Other than his self-serving testimony, no other witness corroborated his allegations on her behavior. As
    the Court has repeatedly stressed, psychological incapacity contemplates "downright incapacity or
    inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations," not merely the refusal,
    neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
    There was also nothing in the records that would indicate that Luz had either been interviewed or was
    subjected to a psychological examination.
    On interpretations given by the NAMT of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, yes, they are given great
    respect by our courts, but they are neither controlling nor decisive.
    Lastly, on petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage
    lies with the plaintiff. Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals a situation where the parties, or one
    of them, could not have validly entered into a marriage by reason of a grave and serious psychological
    illness existing at the time it was celebrated, the Court is compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the
    marital tie.

    You might also like