CIV REV 1 CASE DIGESTS:

G.R. No. 1837888 April 5, 2010

Krizia Katrina Ty- De Zuzuarregui vs The Hon. Joselito Villarosa , in his capacity as the
Presiding Judge of Branch 66 of the RTC of Makati City, and Fannie Torres-Ty
FACTS:
The petitioner and Rosemary Ty-Rasekhi, the sister of Krizias late father were charged
with 2 counts of falsification of public documents after the two stated in the petition for
the issuance of letter of administration of Bellas estate that there are only the 2 of them
as the deceaseds heirs.
Initially, the petitioner opposed Rosemarys petition of issuance of letters of
administration but, eventually entered into a compromise agreement which the court
granted, and which the other siblings Peter, Catherine and Fannie filed before the RTC an
annulment of judgment averring that they are also biological children of the late Bella
entitled to participation in the settlement.
The petitioner filed for a petition for review with the DOJ, and a motion to defer
proceedings before the MeTC on the ground pending appeal before the DOJ, and also,
petitioner and Rosemary filed with the MeTC separate motions to suspend proceedings
on the ground of prejudicial question, which were dismissed and denied respectively and
so was their motion for reconsideration.
The RTC denied petitioners petition for certiorari and prohibition ruling that there was
no prejudicial question as the quantum of evidence in the civil action differs from the
quantum of evidence required in the criminal action for falsification of public documents.
CA denied petitions for certiorari and prohibition as well as the motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUES:
W/N CA erred in not nullifying the assailed orders of public respondent Joselito
Villarosa on the ground that the same was issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
HELD:
The determination of whether the proceedings may be suspended on the basis of a
prejudicial question rests on whether the facts and issues raised in the pleadings in the

civil case are so related with the issues raised in the criminal case such that the resolution
of the issues in the civil case would also determine the judgment in the criminal case.
The allegations in the petition to annul judgment shows that the case pending in the CA is
principally for the determination of the validity of the compromise agreement which did
not include Peter, Catherine, and fannie, who presented for evidence that they are also
biological children of Bella and Alejandro. On the other hand, the criminal case in the
MeTC involve the determination of whether petitioner committed falsification of public
documents in executing pleadings containing untruthful statements that she and
Rosemary are the only legal heirs of Bella.
It is evident that the result of the civil case will determine the innocence or guilt of the
petitioner in the criminal case for falsification of public document. The criminal case
arose out of the claim of Peter, Catherine, and fannie that they are also the legal heirs of
Bella. If it is finally adjudged in the civil case that they are not biological children of the
late Bella and consequently not entitled to a share in her estate as heirs, there no more
basis to proceed with the criminal cases against petitioner who could not have committed
falsification in her pleadings filed before the rtc, the truth of her statement regarding the
filiation of Peter, Catherine, and fannie having been judicially settled.
Granted.

GR NO. 171557 FEB 12, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS RODOLFO DE GARCIA
FACTS:
The petitioner questions the decision rendered by the CA affirming the ruling of the RTC
finding that while the respondents wife, Natividads immaturity, irresponsibility, and
promiscuity by themselves do not necessarily equate to psychological incapacity, their
degree or severity has sufficiently established as psychological disorder so profound as to
render her incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations.
It was averred that Natividad and the respondent were married, had 2 daughters, and the
former left the conjugal home to live with a man named Engr Terez, had another
daughter with him, and later on married another man in the name of Antonio Mondarez.
ISSUE:
W/N the CA erred in sustaining the RTCs finding of psychological incapacity.
HELD:
Meritorious.
Psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify a marriage under art 36 of the family code
should refer to no less than a mental and not merely physical incapacity that causes the
party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly, must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in art. 68 of
the family code, among others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe
love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the
intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the
most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity
or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by a) gravity, b) juridical attendance, C)
incurability.
Based on the evidence presented, there exists insufficient factual or legal basis to
conclude that Natividads emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, or even sexual
promiscuity, can be equated with psychological incapacity.
The RTC affirmed the CAs ruling relying on the psychiatric evaluation report of dr.
zalsos, which does not explain in reasonable detail how Natividads condition could be
characterized as grave, deeply-rooted, and incurable within the parameters of
psychological incapacity jurisprudence. Dr. zalsos also failed to disclose the types of

psychological tests she administered on Natividad, as well as the root cause of her
condition and to show that it existed at the time of the parties marriage. Neither was the
gravity or seriousness of Natividads behaviour in relation to her failure to perform the
essential marital obligations sufficiently described in dr. zalsos report. Thus, for these
reasons, coupled too with the recognition that marriage is an inviolable social institution
and the foundation of the family, the instant petition is hereby granted.