EFFECT OF REPEALING LAW ON LAW FIRST REPEALED

GARCIA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 165835

June 22, 2005

Facts:
This is a petition filed by Clarita Garcia, wife or retired Major General Carlos F.
Garcia, with application for injunctive relief in order issued by the Fourth Division of
Sandiganbayan denying the motion to quash or dismiss Civil Case No. 0193. This is a
suit for the forfeiture commenced by the Republic against petitioner and her immediate
family.
The forfeiture suit was to recover unlawfully acquired funds and properties that
the Garcias allegedly acquires and amassed. Then Republic then filed the
Sandiganbayan through the OMB a petition for forfeiture of those alleged unlawfully
acquires properties of the Garcias. The case was docketed as civil case 0193(forfeiture I)
and subsequently another case of forfeiture involving the same parties was filed
docketed as Civil Case 0196(forfeiture II). Thus the two cases were consolidated for
convenience and clarity. Before the filing of Forfeiture II but subsequent to the filing of
Forfeiture I, the OMB charged the Garcias with violation of RA 7080(plunder) and the
case raffled to the second division of SB. The plunder charge covered substantially the
same properties identified in both Forfeiture I and II.
Petitioner now contends, after denying there motion to dismiss the Forfeiture I
case, that the plunder case and the Forfeiture I case should be consolidated in the
second division of SB pursuan to R 8249. On May 20, 2005, the SB 4th Division denied
the motion for the reason that the forfeiture case is not the corresponding civil action
for the recovery of civil liability arising from the criminal case of plunder.
Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture
under RA 1379.
Ruling:
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings pursuant to RA
1379. Forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem and civil in nature. It is a divestiture of
property without compensation in consequence of an offense.
STARE DECISIS
TING vs. VELEZ-TING
G.R. No. 166562

March 31, 2009

Facts:

On October 21, 1993, after being married for more than 18 years to petitioner
and while their youngest child was only two years old, Carmen filed a verified petition
before the RTC of Cebu City for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on
Article 36 of the Family Code. She claimed that Benjamin suffered from psychological
incapacity even at the time of the celebration of their marriage, which, however, only
became manifest thereafter.
On January 9, 1998, the lower court rendered its decision declaring the marriage
between petitioner and respondent null and void. The RTC gave credence to Dr. Onates

findings and the admissions made by Benjamin in the course of his deposition, and
found him to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations
of marriage.
On October 19, 2000, the petitioner appealed to the CA, reversing the trial
courts decision.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the requirement of proof of
psychological incapacity for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on
Article 36 of the Family Code has been realized
Ruling:
No. By the very nature of case involving the application of Article 36, it is logical
and understood to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists
regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root
cause, juridical antecedent, gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity.
However, such opinions, while highly advisable, are not conditions in granting petitions
for declaration of nullity of marriage. At best, courts must treat such opinions as
decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In
fact, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity, then actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned
need not be resorted to. The trial court, as in any other given case presented before it,
must always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties
but also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings.
But where, as in this case, the parties had the full opportunity to present
professional and expert opinion of psychiatrists tracing the root cause, gravity and
incurability of a partys alleged psychological incapacity, then such expert opinion
should be presented and according, be weighed by the court in deciding whether to
grant a petition for nullity of marriage.
The petition for review on certiorari is granted.