Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RENATO D. ACLAN,
Petitioner,
-versusBELLA D. DIAZ-ACLAN,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x
therein to be declared null and void were the parties marriage in general and not
the weddings that were solemnized, regardless of the dates of their marriages
because the cause of action in this case is psychological incapacity of the
respondent and not vitiation of consent or lack of any essential requisites of
marriage.
When a person is psychologically incapacitated, it cannot be said that he
is psychologically incapacitated when they celebrated their first marriage and he
is not when other marriage ceremony between the parties was contracted. In this
case, it has been settled already that the respondent is suffering from
psychological incapacity when she contracted marriage with the petitioner and
the same is incurable and grave. Therefore, it can be construed that eh
respondent is psychologically incapacitated at the time of the solemnization of
their first marriage and also at the time their second marriage was solemnized.
Even though in the petition and prayer, only the second marriage was
mentioned herein, but what was being prayed to be annulled is the marital union
or the result of the marriage ceremony and not the ceremony itself, therefore,
even though first marriage ceremony was not mentioned in the petition, based on
the facts and circumstance narrated in the petition, the first marriage was
likewise mentioned therein as it is the reckoning point of the marital union of the
parties, except form the fact that the date of their first marriage was not
mentioned therein.
The marriage between petitioner and respondent has long been annulled
through this Courts decision and the same has already become final. Nowhere in
the jurisprudence of this court can it be found that parties to the same marriage
has to undergo another process of nullification of their marriage, even it has
already granted, in case the parties married twice and the what was prayed and
included in the decision was only one of the marriages contracted by the parties.
In the interest of equity and justice, considering that the parties of
marriage solemnized on June 12, 1972 are the same parties in a marriage
solemnized on May 7, 1971 and two marriages have the same facts and
circumstance, but only the marriage dated June 12, 1972 was declared null and
void, the petitioner is entitled to reconsideration.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully and fervently
prayed that the order dated June 19, 2013 be reconsidered and set aside, and a
new one be rendered in favor in favor of herein petitioner, to the end that that the
motion to amend decision be granted.
Muntinlupa City for Quezon City. July 16, 2013
JOVITO SALVADOR
Copy furnished:
Office of the Public Prosecutor
Quezon City