Singson Vs Singson

96. MARIA CONCEPCION N. SINGSON a.k.a. 3.
and he and petitioner also have investments in

CONCEPCION N. SINGSON vs. BENJAMIN L. SINGSON shares of stocks, cars, household appliances,
DEL CASTILLO, J. furniture, and jewelry;
January 8, 2018
4. and that these are conjugal assets because they
came from petitioner's salaries and his
(respondent's) own inheritance money.
FACTS:
On February 27, 2007, Maria Concepcion N. Singson a.k.a. Trial thereafter ensued. Petitioner's witnesses included
Concepcion N. Singson (petitioner) filed a Petition for herself, her son, Jose Angelo Singson (Jose), and Dr. Sta.
declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Ana-Ponio.
Family Code of the Philippines (Family Code). This was
docketed as Civil Case No. 07-0070. In its Decision of November 12, 2010, the RTC granted the
Petition and declared the marriage between petitioner and
It was alleged therein that on July 6, 1974, respondent void ab initio on the ground of the latter’s
psychological incapacity.
1. petitioner and Benjamin L. Singson (respondent)
were married before the Rev. Fr. Alfonso L. Casteig In its Decision of August 29, 2013, the CA overturned the
at St. Francis Church, Mandaluyong, Rizal; RTC.
2. that said marriage produced four children, all of Hence, this Petition wherein notably the petitioner insists
whom are now of legal age; that when they started that this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that
living together, petitioner noticed that respondent personality disorders are generally incurable and
was "dishonest, unreasonably extravagant at the permanent, and must continuously be treated medically;
expense of the family's welfare, extremely vain
physically and spiritually," and a compulsive that in this case the Clinical Summary; had pointed out that
gambler; respondent's understanding of his gambling problem is
only at the surface level; and that in point of fact Dr. Sta.
3. that respondent was immature, and was w1ab1e Ana-Ponio had affirmed that personality disorders are
to perform his paternal duties; that respondent incurable.
was also irresponsible, an easy-going man, and
guilty of infidelity;
ISSUE:
4. that respondent's abnormal behavior made him
completely unable to render any help, support, or (1) Whether or not respondent is psychologically
assistance to her; and that because she could incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
expect no help or assistance at all from obligations.
respondent she was compelled to work doubly
hard to support her family as the sole (2) Whether or not the testimonies of Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio
breadwinner. and son Jose are meritorious.
Petitioner also averred that at the time she filed this (3) Whether or not Court can take judicial notice of the fact
Petition, respondent was confined at Metro Psych Facility, that personality disorders are generally incurable and
a rehabilitation institution in Pasig City; and permanent, and must continuously be treated medically.
that respondent's attending psychiatrist, Dr. Benita Sta.

Ana-Ponio (Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio), made the following
diagnosis on respondent: xx
Finally, petitioner claimed that she and respondent did not

enter into any ante-nuptial agreement to govern their
prope1ty relations as husband and wife and that they had
no conjugal assets or debts.
Traversing petitioner's allegations, respondent claimed

that "psychological incapacity" must be characterized by
gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability, which are
not present in the instant case because petitioner's
allegations are not supported by facts. Xx
Respondent furthermore claimed that
1. he and petitioner had conjugal assets and debts;

that the land where their family home is built
came from his earnings, hence the family home is
their conjugal property;
2. that he and petitioner also have a house and lot in

Tagaytay City, as well as bank accounts that are in
petitioner's name only;
HELD: (2) NO.
(1) NO. As heretofore mentioned, the medical basis or evidence
adverted to by the RTC did not specifically identify the root
We agree with the CA that the evidence on record does not cause of respondent's alleged psychological incapacity.
establish that respondent's psychological incapacity was
grave and serious as defined by jurisprudential Equally bereft of merit is petitioner's claim that
parameters since "[respondent] had a job; provided money respondent's alleged psychological incapacity could be
for the family from the sale of his property; provided the attributed to the latter's family or childhood, which are
land where the family home was built on; and lived in the circumstances prior to the parties' marriage;
family home with petitioner-appellee and their
children."40 no evidence has been adduced to substantiate this fact.
Upon the other hand, petitioner herself testified that Nor is there basis for upholding petitioner's contention
respondent had a job as the latter "was working at a that respondent's family was "distraught" and that
certain point."41 respondent's conduct was "dysfunctional";
This is consistent with the information in Dr. Sta. Ana- again, there is no evidence to attest to this.
Ponio's Clinical Summary and testimony, which were both
included in petitioner's formal offer of evidence, These are very serious charges which must be
respecting the parties' relationship history that petitioner substantiated by clear evidence which, unfortunately,
and respondent met at the bank where petitioner was petitioner did not at all adduce.
applying for a job and where respondent was employed as
a credit investigator prior to their courtship and their Indeed, Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio did not make a specific finding
marriage.42 that this was the origin of respondent's alleged inability to
appreciate marital obligations.
It is significant to note moreover that petitioner also
submitted as part of her evidence a notarized summary Needless to say, petitioner cannot lean upon her son Jose's
dated February 18, 2010 which enumerated expenses paid testimony that his father's psychological incapacity existed
for by the proceeds of respondent's share in the sale of his before or at the time of marriage.1â wphi1
parents' home in Magallanes, Makati City which amounted
to around ₱2.9 million. It has been held that the parties' child is not a very reliable
witness in an Article 36 case as "he could not have been
Although petitioner was insinuating that this amount was there when the spouses were married and could not have
insufficient to cover the family expenses from 1999 to been expected to know what was happening between his
2008, we note that she admitted under oath that the items parents until long after his birth."
for their family budget, such as their children's education,
the payments for association dues, and for electric bills
came from this money.
(3) NO.
To be sure, this Court cannot take judicial notice of

petitioner's assertion that "personality disorders are
generally incurable" as this is not a matter that courts are
mandated to take judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129
of the Rules of Court.

Singson Vs Singson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Singson Vs Singson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Singson Vs Singson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

96. MARIA CONCEPCION N. SINGSON a.k.a. 3.

and he and petitioner also have investments in

that respondent's attending psychiatrist, Dr. Benita Sta.

Finally, petitioner claimed that she and respondent did not

Traversing petitioner's allegations, respondent claimed

Respondent furthermore claimed that

1. he and petitioner had conjugal assets and debts;

2. that he and petitioner also have a house and lot in

To be sure, this Court cannot take judicial notice of

You might also like