Pesca v. Pesca

PESCA v. PESCA identified and proven by an expert.
The CA held that Lorna failed to establish

G.R. No. 136921 such therefore, the marriage remains valid and subsisting.
April 17, 2001
Topic: Judicial Decisions Lorna appealed to the SC claiming that Santos v. CA was promulgated on
Petitioner: Lorna Guillen Pesca January 14, 1995 and Republic v. CA and Molina was promulgated on February
Respondent: Zosimo A. Pesca 13, 1997, therefore the Molina doctrine should have no retroactive application
Ponente: , J. Vitug as this was promulgated after the RTC had made its decision.
DOCTRINE: The Doctrine of Stare Decisis expresses that judicial decisions ISSUE: W/N the Molina doctrine has retroactive application.
applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines. The interpretation or construction placed by the courts establishes HELD: Yes, the Molina doctrine has retroactive application. The doctrine of
the contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. This interpretation or stare decisis expresses that judicial decisions interpreting the law shall form
construction then forms part of that law as of the date the statute was enacted, part of the legal system of the Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal
unless the court overrules such interpretation and adopts a different view that a maxim - "legis interpretado legis vim obtinet" - that the interpretation placed
new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively. upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law. The
interpretation or construction placed by the courts establishes the
FACTS: Lorna Pesca and Zosimo Pesca got married on March 3 1975 after a contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. The latter as so interpreted and
whirlwind courtship. Then in 1988, Lorna noticed that Zosimo showed signs of construed would thus constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is
“psychological incapacity.” He was emotionally immature and an irresponsible enacted. It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds itself later overruled,
husband, a habitual drinker, physically abusive, cruel and violent. One time, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied
Zosimo chased Lorna with a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in the prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have
presence of their four children. Zosimo was also physically violent towards the acted in good faith in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of "lex
children. prospicit, non respicit."
Sometime in 1994, Zosimo assaulted Lorna in the presence of their children. The phrase "psychological incapacity ," borrowed from Canon law and it is in
Lorna was medically examined at the Quezon City General Hospital and was Santos when, for the first time, the Court has given life to the term. Molina, that
diagnosed with contusions and abrasions. Zosimo was charged and convicted of followed, has additionally provided procedural guidelines to assist the courts
slight physical injuries and spent 11 days in jails. This incident prompted, Lorna and the parties in trying cases for annulment of marriages grounded on
to leave the conjugal home for good and to file for declaration of nullity of their psychological incapacity. Molina has strengthened, not overturned, Santos.
marriage, invoking psychological incapacity with the RTC.
The two doctrines, Santos and Molina, as interpretations of psychological
In November 1995, The RTC declared the marriage to be null and void ab initio incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code constitute a part of the Family Code
on the basis of psychological incapacity on the part of Zosimo. as of the date the statute was enacted on July 6, 1987. Therefore it is given
retroactive application.
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and declared the
marriage valid and subsisting citing the Santos and Molina Doctrines. The CA RULING: WHEREFORE, the herein petition is DENIED.
held that in order for a marriage to be declared void on the ground of
psychological incapacity, it must be established that there were signs of mental
incapacity that would render a party to the marriage incapable of complying
with the basic marital covenant as provided in Art. 68 of the Family Code. And
that such incapacity is grave, has preceded the marriage, and is incurable. In
addition thereto, the root cause of the incapacity must be medically or clinically

Pesca v. Pesca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pesca v. Pesca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Pesca v. Pesca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PESCA v. PESCA identified and proven by an expert.

The CA held that Lorna failed to establish

You might also like