Republic vs.

CA
G.R. no 159594

The present case is a petition to declare the marriage between

Eduardo De Quintos and Catalina De Quintos null and void based on
Catalinas alleged psychological incapacity. The State, standing as the
petitioner, assailed the declaration of nullity based on numerous
contentions, one of which is that there appeared to be a collusion
between the parties evidenced by the fact that Eduardo paid Catalina
in the amount of Php 50,000 allegedly for her to not appear in the trial.
The Court however,
found that there existed no collusion and the Php 50,000 paid by
Eduardo is not for her non-appearance to the trial but for her share of
the conjugal property.

March 16, 1977, Eduardo and Catalina were married in civil rites
solemnized by the Municipal Mayor of Lingayen, Pangasinan. On April 6,
1998, Eduardo filed a petition to declare the marriage null based on his
wifes alleged psychological incapacity to fulfill her marital
obligations. Catalina did not present any objection to the petition but
only prayed for her share of the conjugal property in Bacabac,
Pangasinan.
The RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage of Eduardo and
Catalina null on ground of the latters psychological incapacity to fulfill
her marital obligations. The State, appealed said decision to the CA,
CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, the petition before the SC
Petitioner argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish
the psychological incapacity of Catalina to fulfill her marital
obligations and that THERE EXISTED A POSSIBLE COLLUSION
BETWEEN THE PARTIES EVIDENCED BY THE PAYMENT OF Php 50,000
BY EDUARDO TO CATALINA DURING THE TRIAL FOR HER ALLEGED
NONAPPEARANCE.

Issue:
WON there was collusion between Eduardo and Catalina

Held:

NO
The Court found that there was no clear and sufficient proof there was
any collusion between Eduardo and Catalina and that the payment of
Eduardo of the 50,000 to Catalina is not for her non-appearance in the
trials but was actually for her share in the conjugal property. Further, it
was clear that from the start, Catalina had no objections on the
petition for nullity of her marriage with Eduardo and that she was only
concerned for her share in the conjugal property. It was shown in the
crossexamination of Eduardo during the trials that the purpose of the
payment of Php 50,000 was actually for her share in the conjugal
property and not as a bribe for her to not appear in the trial anymore.
The Court stated that the payment of Php 50,000 was Eduardos
recognition of her unquestionable legal entitlement to the conjugal
share and that the payment was inconsequential for her appearance or
non-appearance to the trial.

Decision: Court reversed the decision of the RTC and the subsequent
affirmation of the CA on grounds that there existed no psychological
incapacity on the part of Catalina.