Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    3 Pesca V Pesca (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Romeo Rivera
    1) The petitioner filed for annulment of her marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity, alleging that her husband was emotionally immature, irresponsible, cruel, violent, and a habitual drunk. 2) The RTC declared their marriage null and void, but the CA reversed this ruling. 3) The Supreme Court held that the guidelines for determining psychological incapacity established in previous cases, such as Republic v. CA & Molina, must be followed and are mandatory in nature. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    3 Pesca V Pesca (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Romeo Rivera
    49 views1 page
    1) The petitioner filed for annulment of her marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity, alleging that her husband was emotionally immature, irresponsible, cruel, violent, and a habitual drunk. 2) The RTC declared their marriage null and void, but the CA reversed this ruling. 3) The Supreme Court held that the guidelines for determining psychological incapacity established in previous cases, such as Republic v. CA & Molina, must be followed and are mandatory in nature. The petition was denied.

    Original Title

    3 Pesca v Pesca (Case Digest)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner filed for annulment of her marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity, alleging that her husband was emotionally immature, irresponsible, cruel, violent, and a habitual drunk. 2) The RTC declared their marriage null and void, but the CA reversed this ruling. 3) The Supreme Court held that the guidelines for determining psychological incapacity established in previous cases, such as Republic v. CA & Molina, must be followed and are mandatory in nature. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views1 page

    3 Pesca V Pesca (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Romeo Rivera
    1) The petitioner filed for annulment of her marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity, alleging that her husband was emotionally immature, irresponsible, cruel, violent, and a habitual drunk. 2) The RTC declared their marriage null and void, but the CA reversed this ruling. 3) The Supreme Court held that the guidelines for determining psychological incapacity established in previous cases, such as Republic v. CA & Molina, must be followed and are mandatory in nature. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Pesca v.

    Pesca,
    G.R. No. 136921
    April 17, 2001

    FACTS:

    The petitioner and private respondent were married since 1975 and had four children. Lorna
    filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity to
    perform his marital obligations. She alleged that he is emotionally immature and irresponsible. He was
    cruel and violent. He was a habitual drinker. Whenever she tells him to stop or at least minimize his
    drinking, her husband would hurt her. There was even a time when she was chased by a loaded shotgun
    and threatened to kill her in the presence of their children. The children also suffered physical violence.
    Petitioner and their children left the home. Two months later, they returned upon the promise of
    respondent to change. But he didn’t. She was battered again. Her husband was imprisoned for 11 days
    for slight physical injuries. RTC declared their marriage null and void. CA reversed RTC’s ruling. Hence,
    this petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the guidelines for psychological incapacity in the case of Republic vs. CA &
    Molina should be taken in consideration in deciding in this case.

    HELD:

    Yes. The “doctrine of stare decisis,” ordained in Article 8 of the Civil Code, expresses that judicial
    decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. The rule
    follows the settled legal maxim – “legis interpretado legis vim obtinet” – that the interpretation placed
    upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law. The interpretation or construction
    placed by the courts establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. The latter as so
    interpreted and construed would thus constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is enacted.
    It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds itself later overruled, and a different view is adopted,
    that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the
    old doctrine and have acted in good faith in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of “lex
    prospicit, non respicit.”

    Thus the term psychological incapacity, borrowed from the Canon Law, was given legal life by
    the Court in the case of Santos; in the case of Molina, additional procedural guidelines to assist the
    courts and the parties in trying cases for annulment of marriages grounded on psychological incapacity
    was added. Both judicial decisions in Santos and Molina have the force and effect of law. Thus,
    the guidelines in the case of Molina are mandatory in nature. The petition was denied.

    You might also like