Aurelio v. Aurelio (2011)

DANILO A.
AURELIO, Petitioner,
Case Name vs.
VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO, Respondent.
V. Void Marriages – Procedure in actions for declaration of nullity – No Motion To

Topic
Dismiss
Case No. |
G.R. No. 175367 | June 6, 2011
Date
Ponente J. Peralta
Digest
Jude Fanila
Author
Summary
Petition is a petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA which affirmed the RTC’s grant of
nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the FC.
Flow is : Petitioner (Husband) lost in RTC, where wife (respondent) filed nullity of marriage for psych
incapacity. Husband appealed RTC, RTC dismissed, CA affirmed RTC, SC affirmed CA.
Doctrines involved Motion to Dismiss
Application of Doctrines (re: Outline/topic placement) Denial of motion to dismiss is not reviewable by
certiorari, proper remedy is to proceed to trial then
appeal that decision if petitioner lost.
RELEVANT FACTS
1. On May 9, 2002 respondent (Wife) filed with the RTC of Quezon city a petition for declaration
of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the FC. She alleged that both she and petitioner were
psychologically incapacitated and that aforementioned incapacitation was present prior and even
during the time of the marriage ceremony.
a. Psych Incapacity for Husband – lack of financial support, lack of drive and incapacity to
discern the plight of his working wife. “The husband exhibited consistent jealousy and
distrust towards his wife. His moods alternated between hostile defiance and contrition.
He refused to assist in the maintenance of the family. He refused to foot the household
bills and provide for his family’s needs. He exhibited arrogance. He was completely
insensitive to the feelings of his wife. He liked to humiliate and embarrass his wife even in
the presence of their children.”
b. Psych Incapacity for Wife – “is effusive and displays her feelings openly and freely. Her
feelings change very quickly – from joy to fury to misery to despair, depending on her
day-to-day experiences. Her tolerance for boredom was very low. She was emotionally
immature; she cannot stand frustration or disappointment. She cannot delay to gratify her
needs. She gets upset when she cannot get what she wants. Self-indulgence lifts her spirits
immensely. Their hostility towards each other distorted their relationship.”
2. Both parties were evaluated by a psychologist who found incapacity. Diagnosed Wife with
Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features; Husband diagnosed with passive-
aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder that render him immature and irresponsible to
assume the normal obligations of a marriage.
3. Petitioner (Husband) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action.
4. RTC denied motion to dismiss, he filed a motion for reconsideration but was also denied by the
RTC then ruled in favor of the wife, declaring their marriage void on grounds of psychological
incapacity on December 17, 2003.
5. Petitioner then appealed to the CA on February 2004, however CA dismissed appeal on October
6, 2005. Affirming the decision of the RTC.
6. Leading to current petition.
Petition for Certiorari

 Seeking to set aside the October 6, 2005 and October 26, 2006 decisions of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner avers that:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATED THE APPLICABLE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT HELD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE
PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ARE SUFFICIENT FOR
THE COURT TO DECLARE THE NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN VIDA AND
DANILO.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATED THE APPLICABLE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S ACTION FOR CERTIORARI DESPITE
THE FACT THAT THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS
PATENTLY AND UTTERLY TAINTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION; AND THAT APPEAL IN DUE
COURSE IS NOT A PLAIN, ADEQUATE OR SPEEDY REMEDY UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the RTC NO.

committed grave  No showing that there was a grave abuse of discretion which the SC puts
abuse of discretion to mean as “capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent
in denying to lack of jurisdiction”. Mere abuse
petitioner’s motion  Thus, the CA did not err in dismissing the petition. The denial of a
to dismiss? motion dismiss is not reviewable by certiorari as it is an interlocury
order.
o His remedy was to reiterate the grounds in his motion to dismiss
as defenses in his answer to the petition for nullity and proceed to
trial. If trial fails, then he appeals the trial. Thus, there is adequate
remedy which removes underpinnings for petition for certiorari.
W/N the granting YES

of nullity of  Wife, in her petition sufficiently complied with the Molina doctrine.
marriage was
o That the illness was of such a grave nature as to bring about
correct?
disability to fail to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage under Art. 68 to 71 of the FC.
o That the root cause predated the marriage as identified by the
diagnosis of the Psychologist.
 She also sufficiently stated the cause of action in her initial complaint by
stating root cause of psychological incapacity in the complaint.
RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered the petition is DENIED. The October 6, 2005 Decision and
October 26, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 82238, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
NOTES
Family Code Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be
void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
render mutual help and support. (109a)
Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide.
The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are
other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the
same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (110a)
Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support
and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof,
from the income or fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income
or fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate properties. (111a)
Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and the duty of both spouses. The expenses
for such management shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 70. (115a)

Aurelio v. Aurelio (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aurelio v. Aurelio (2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aurelio v. Aurelio (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DANILO A.

V. Void Marriages – Procedure in actions for declaration of nullity – No Motion To

Doctrines involved Motion to Dismiss

Petition for Certiorari

Petitioner avers that:

W/N the RTC NO.

W/N the granting YES

You might also like