Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    16 Yolanda E. Garlet vs. Vencidor T. Garlet

    Uploaded by

    Gloria, Melica Ina V.
    1) Yolanda filed a petition to nullify her marriage to Vencidor due to psychological incapacity. 2) A clinical psychologist found that Vencidor has a narcissistic personality disorder while Yolanda has the capacity for marriage. 3) The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.

    Copyright:

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

    16 Yolanda E. Garlet vs. Vencidor T. Garlet

    Uploaded by

    Gloria, Melica Ina V.
    60 views3 pages
    1) Yolanda filed a petition to nullify her marriage to Vencidor due to psychological incapacity. 2) A clinical psychologist found that Vencidor has a narcissistic personality disorder while Yolanda has the capacity for marriage. 3) The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.

    Original Title

    16 Yolanda E. Garlet vs. Vencidor T. Garlet,.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Yolanda filed a petition to nullify her marriage to Vencidor due to psychological incapacity. 2) A clinical psychologist found that Vencidor has a narcissistic personality disorder while Yolanda has the capacity for marriage. 3) The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    60 views3 pages

    16 Yolanda E. Garlet vs. Vencidor T. Garlet

    Uploaded by

    Gloria, Melica Ina V.
    1) Yolanda filed a petition to nullify her marriage to Vencidor due to psychological incapacity. 2) A clinical psychologist found that Vencidor has a narcissistic personality disorder while Yolanda has the capacity for marriage. 3) The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    a.

    Doctrine: Article 36 of the Family Code, to wit: The burden of proof to


    show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
    should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
    marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. Petitioner’s evidence
    shall still be scrutinized and weighed, regardless of respondent’s
    failure to present any evidence on his behalf.
    b. Case Title: Yolanda E. Garlet vs. Vencidor T. Garlet, GR. No. 193544,
    (J. Leonardo- De Castro) (August 2, 2017)
    c. Facts: 1. Petitioner and respondent Vencidor T. Garlet met each other
    sometime in 1988. Petitioner gave birth to their son out of wedlock on
    November 9, 1989.
    2. Petitioner and respondent eventually got married on March 4,
    1994.
    3. After seven years of marriage, petitioner and respondent
    separated in 2001. Petitioner now has custody over their two
    children.
    4. On May 6, 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity
    of Marriage on the ground of respondent's psychological
    incapacity to fulfill his essential marital obligations to petitioner and
    their children.
    5. Petitioner and respondent were fighting constantly. Sometime in
    2001, they had a serious altercation during which, respondent
    strangled petitioner.
    6. Petitioner filed an application for support.
    7. Clinical Psychologist, Ms. De Guzman cleared petitioner of any
    psychological disorder, saying that petitioner has the capacity to
    understand and comply with her marital obligations. In contrast,
    Ms. De Guzman found respondent to be suffering from a
    narcissistic type of personality disorder.
    8. Respondent testified on his own behalf. However, in an Order
    dated September 14, 2006, the RTC declared respondent's direct
    testimony stricken off the record because of respondent's failure to
    appear for his cross-examination.
    9. In its Decision dated November 27, 2006, the RTC gave weight to
    Ms. De Guzman's conclusion and ruled that: the parties never
    shared a true married life.
    10. The RTC denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration in its
    Order dated February 26, 2007. The Court of Appeals, in its
    Decision dated June 21, 2010, reversed the RTC judgment.
    11. Petitioner filed a motion seeking an extension, within which to
    file a motion for reconsideration. However, the Court of Appeals
    issued a Resolution on August 24, 2010 denying petitioner's
    Motion for Reconsideration for being filed out of time.
    12. Hence, this petition.
    d. Issue/s: Whether Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of
    the Trial Court and declaring the marriage to be subsisting, the Court
    of Appeals misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable law and
    jurisprudence of the case.
    e. Held: The Court finds that the psychological report presented in this
    case is insufficient to establish Nilda's psychological incapacity.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on


    Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 21, 2010 and
    Resolution dated August 24, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
    CV No. 89142 are AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like