Santos v Ca - Digest.docx

G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AN JUL!A ROSAR!O BE!A"SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS# Petitioner Leouel, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met  Julia in Iloilo. The two got married in 198, !egot a son and lived with  Julia"s parents. The spouses o##asionally $uarrel over a num!er o% things aside %rom the inter%eren#e o% Julia"s parents into their %amily a&airs.

In 1988, Julia le%t to wor' in () as a nurse despite Leouel"s pleas to dissuade her. her. )even months a%ter a%ter her departure, departure, she #alled her hus!and and promised to return home upon the e*piration o% her #ontra#t in July 1989 19 89,, !ut !ut sh she e neve neverr did. did. Leou Leouel el got a #han# #han#e e to visit visit () wher where e he underwent a training program under AFP, he desperately tried to lo#ate or somehow get in tou#h with Julia !ut all his e&orts were o% no avail.

Leou Leouel el +led +led a #omp #ompla lain intt with with the the T- to have have thei theirr marr marria iage ge de#lared void under Arti#le Arti#le  o% the Family Family -ode. /e argued that %ailure %ailure o% Julia to return home or to #ommuni#ate with him %or more than 0 years are #ir#umstan#es that show her !eing psy#hologi#ally in#apa#itated to enter into married li%e.

 Julia, in her answer, opposed the #omplaint and denied its alle allegat gatio ions, ns, #lai #laimi ming ng that that it was was the the Leou Leouel el who who had, had, in %a#t, %a#t, !een !een irresponsi!le irresponsi!le and in#ompetent.

T- dism dismis isse sed d the the #omp #ompla lain intt %or %or la#' la#' o% meri merit. t. n appe appeal al,, -A a2rmed T-.

!SSU !SSUE# E# 34 Julia is psy#hologi#ally in#apa#itated, whi#h would render her marriage with Leouel void.

LA$# Arti#le , Family Family -ode. A marriage #ontra#ted !y any party who, at the time o% the #ele!ration, was psy#hologi#ally in#apa#itated to #omply with the essential marital o!ligations o% marriage, shall li'ewise !e void even i% su#h in#apa#ity !e#omes mani%est only a%ter a %ter its solemni5ation

EC! EC!S! S!ON ON## 4o6 Julia Julia is not ps#hol ps#hologi ogi#al #ally ly in#apa in#apa#it #itate ated, d, whi#h whi#h would would render her marriage with Leouel void sin#e the alleged in#apa#ity did not pass the tests o% gravity, 7uridi#al ante#eden#e and in#ura!ility. in#ura!ility.

Psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity must !e #hara#teri5ed !y a gravity, !  7uridi#al ante#eden#e, and # in#ura!ility. The in#apa#ity must !e grave or serious su#h that the party would !e in#apa!le o% #arrying out the ordinary duties re$uired in marriage6 it must !e rooted in the history o%  the party antedating the marriage, although the overt mani%estations may emerge only a%ter the marriage6 and it must !e in#ura!le or, even i% it were otherwise, the #ure would !e !eyond the means o% the party involved. :Psy#hologi#al in#apa#ity: should re%er to no less than a mental not physi#al in#apa#ity that #auses a party to !e truly in#ognitive o% the !asi# marital #ovenants that #on#omitantly must !e assumed and dis#harged !y the parties to the marriage whi#h, as so e*pressed !y Arti#le 8 o% the Family -ode, in#lude their mutual o!ligations to live together, o!serve love, respe#t and +delity and render help and support. This ps#hologi# #ondition must e*ist at the time the marriage is #ele!rated.  The %a#tual settings in the #ase at !en#h, in no measure at all, #an #ome #lose to the standards re$uired to de#ree a nullity o% marriage. (ndenia!ly and understanda!ly, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. egretta!ly, neither law nor so#iety itsel% #an always provide all the spe#i+# answers to every individual pro!lem. 3here%ore, his petition was denied.