in the afternoon until early morning regularly.
This went on until 1994
Topic Persons / Molina Doctrine
Case No. G.R. No. 136921 | April 17, 2001
Case Pesca vs. Pesca
Name
Full Case LORNA GUILLEN PESCA, petitioner, vs. ZOSIMO A.
Name PESCA, respondent.
Ponente Vitug, J.:
Doctrine Molina Doctrine
Nature Submitted for review is the decision of the Court of Appeals,
promulgated on 27 May 1998, in C.A. G.R. CV. No. 52374,
reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Caloocan City, Branch 130, which has declared the marriage
between petitioner and respondent to be null and void ab
initio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of
respondent.
RELEVANT FACTS
Sometime in 1975, Lorna Guillen and Zosima Pesca met each
other. They decided to get married in March of the same year.
Initially, the young couple did not live together as petitioner was still
a student in college and respondent, a seaman, had to leave the
country on board an ocean-going vessel barely a month after the
marriage. Six months later, the young couple established their
residence in Quezon City until they were able to build their own
house in Caloocan City where they finally resided. It was blissful
marriage for the couple during the two months of the year that they
could stay together when respondent was on vacation. The union
begot four children, 19-year old Ruhem, 17-year old Rez, 11-year old
Ryan, and 9-year old Richie.
However, in 1988, Lorna noticed some changes in Zosimo as
the latter became cruel, violent, and a habitual drinker. He would
hurt her and the children. He would have drinking sessions from late
when Lorna decided to leave Zosimo for good and she also filed a
petition for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage on the
ground that Zosimo is psychologically incapacitated by reason of his
emotional immaturity and irresponsibility.
The trial court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals
reversed the said ruling. The CA ratiocinated that based on the earlier
cases of Santos vs CA and Republic vs Court of Appeals and Molina,
the allegations of Lorna failed to prove Zosimo’s psychological
incapacity.
ISSUE
Whether or not emotional incapacity and immaturity can be equated to
psychological incapacity and subsequently be a ground of annulment
based on the Article 36 of the Family Code.
No. Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, invoked by the
petitioner, cannot be equated with psychological incapacity.
As the Court of Appeals observed, Lorna was not able to establish the
following: (1) That Zosimo showed signs of mental incapacity that would
cause him to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenant, as so
provided for in Article 68 of the Family Code; (2) that the incapacity is
grave, has preceded the marriage and is incurable; (3) that his incapacity
to meet his marital responsibility is because of a psychological, not
physical illness; (4) that the root cause of the incapacity has been
identified medically or clinically, and has been proven by an expert; and
(5) that the incapacity is permanent and incurable in nature.
The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies in the plaintiff
and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.
DISPOSITIVE POSITION
The herein petition is DENIED. No costs.