Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Agraviador vs. Agraviador & Mendoza vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    mitch galax
    The petitioner filed for nullity of marriage, alleging the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding: 1) the evidence did not establish the respondent's condition was incurable at the time of marriage; 2) the psychiatric evaluation relied solely on one-sided information without examining the respondent; and 3) the alleged personality defects did not constitute psychological incapacity as defined by law. The totality of evidence was insufficient to prove psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations.

    Copyright:

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

    Agraviador vs. Agraviador & Mendoza vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    mitch galax
    67 views3 pages
    The petitioner filed for nullity of marriage, alleging the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding: 1) the evidence did not establish the respondent's condition was incurable at the time of marriage; 2) the psychiatric evaluation relied solely on one-sided information without examining the respondent; and 3) the alleged personality defects did not constitute psychological incapacity as defined by law. The totality of evidence was insufficient to prove psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed for nullity of marriage, alleging the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding: 1) the evidence did not establish the respondent's condition was incurable at the time of marriage; 2) the psychiatric evaluation relied solely on one-sided information without examining the respondent; and 3) the alleged personality defects did not constitute psychological incapacity as defined by law. The totality of evidence was insufficient to prove psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations.

    Copyright:

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

    Agraviador vs. Agraviador & Mendoza vs. Republic

    Uploaded by

    mitch galax
    The petitioner filed for nullity of marriage, alleging the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding: 1) the evidence did not establish the respondent's condition was incurable at the time of marriage; 2) the psychiatric evaluation relied solely on one-sided information without examining the respondent; and 3) the alleged personality defects did not constitute psychological incapacity as defined by law. The totality of evidence was insufficient to prove psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations.

    Copyright:

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

    ENRIQUE AGRAVIADOR y ALUNAN, Petitioner, v.

    ERLINDA AMPARO-AGRAVIADOR and REPUBLIC OF


    THEPHILIPPINES, Respondents.

    (G.R. No.170729; December 8, 2010).

    FACTS: 

    On May 23, 1973, the petitioner and the respondent contracted marriage. They begot four children.

    On March 1, 2001, the petitioner filed with the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with the
    respondent, under Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to
    exercise the essential obligations of marriage as she was carefree and irresponsible, and refused to do household chores
    like cleaning and cooking; stayed away from their house for long periods of time; had an affair with a lesbian; did not take
    care of their sick child; consulted a witch doctor in order to bring him bad fate; and refused to use the family name
    Agraviador in her activities.

    The respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the root cause of her psychological incapacity was not
    medically identified and alleged in the petition. The RTC nullified the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent in its
    decision. It saw merit in the petitioners testimony and the psychiatric evaluation report. The CA reversed and set aside the
    RTC resolution, and dismissed the petition.
    ISSUE:

    Is there basis to nullify the petitioners marriage to the respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity to comply with
    the essential marital obligations?

    HELD: 

    The court resolves to deny the petition for lack of merit, and hold that no sufficient basis exists to annul the marriage,
    pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code and its related jurisprudence.

    The totality of evidence presented failed to establish the respondents psychological incapacity. In the present case, the
    petitioners testimony failed to establish that the respondents condition is a manifestation of a disordered personality rooted
    on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition that makes her completely unable to discharge the essential
    marital obligations. If at all, the petitioner merely showed that the respondent had some personality defects that showed
    their manifestation during the marriage; his testimony sorely lacked details necessary to establish that the respondents
    defects existed at the inception of the marriage.In addition, the petitioner failed to discuss the gravity of the respondents
    condition; neither did he mention that the respondents malady was incurable, or if it were otherwise, the cure would be
    beyond the respondents means to undertake. The petitioners declarations that the respondent "does not accept her fault,"
    "does not want to change," and "refused to reform" are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is
    serious, grave, or incurable as contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code.

    The Court also finds that the Psychiatric Evaluation Report fell short in proving that the respondent was psychologically
    incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties. The doctor did not personally evaluate and examine the respondent.
    Largely, the doctor relied on the information provided by the petitioner. DENIED.
    Mendoza v. Republic
    G.R. No. 157649; November 12, 2012

    FACTS:

    Anabelle and Dominic met in 1989 upon his return to the country from his employment in Papua New Guinea. After a
    month of courtship, they became intimate and their intimacy led to her pregnancy. They got married 8 months after on
    June 24, 1991. Being one with the fixed income, she shouldered all of the family’s expenses. Ironically, he spent his first
    sales commission on a celebratory bash with his friends. In September 1994, she discovered his illicit affair with his co-
    employee and they started to sleep in separate rooms affecting their sexual relationship. Dominic eventually got fired
    from his employment and was criminally charged with the violation of B.P. 22 and estafa.

    ISSUE:

    Is the marriage null and void on the basis of Article 36 of the Family Code?

    RULING:

    The appeal has no merit. The CA correctly indicated that the ill-feelings that the petitioner harbored against Dominic
    furnished the basis to doubt the findings of the expert witness; that such findings were one-sided and that he did not
    participate in the proceedings. The findings and conclusions on his psychological profile were solely based on the self-
    serving testimonial descriptions of him by the petitioner and her witnesses. The court finds the totality of evidence
    adduced by the petitioner insufficient to prove that Dominic was psychologically unfit. Accordingly, the RTC’s findings
    that Dominic’s psychological incapacity was characterized by gravity, antecedence, and incurability could not stand
    scrutiny. His alleged immaturity, deceitfulness, and lack of remorse did not necessarily constitute psychological
    incapacity. The court denies the petition for certiorari and affirms that decision of the Court of Appeals.

    You might also like