Republic V Dagdag

Republic v.
Dagdag with friends and would return home controverting evidence, and stating that
G.R. No. 109975 | February 9, 2001 drunk. He would also force his wife to should he fail to file said manifestation,
Quisimbing, J. submit to sexual intercourse and if she the case would be deemed submitted
refused, he would inflict physical for decision. On December 27, 1990,
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines injuries on her. without waiting for the investigating
Respondents: Erlinda Matias Dagdag  On October 1993, he left his family prosecutor’s manifestation dated
again and that was the last they heard December 5, 1990, the trial court
Relevant Law/s: from him. Erlinda found out that rendered a decision declaring the
 Art. 36, Family Code Avelino was actually imprisoned for a marriage of Erlinda and Avelino void
A marriage contracted by any party crime and that he escaped from jail on under Article 36 of the Family Code.
who, at the time of the celebration, was October of 1985. A certification to that  On January 29, 1991, the investigating
psychologically incapacitated to comply fact was issued by Jail Warden Limon in prosecutor filed a Motion to Set Aside
with the essential marital obligations of February 1990. Judgment on the ground that the
marriage, shall likewise be void even if  Erlinda filed with the Regional Trial decision was prematurely rendered
such incapacity becomes manifest only Court of Olongapo City a petition for since he was given until January 2, 1991
after its solemnization. (As amended by judicial declaration of nullity of to manifest whether he was presenting
Executive Order 227) marriage on the ground of controverting evidence. The OSG
psychological incapacity under Article likewise filed a Motion for
Facts and Procedural History: 36 of the Family Code on July 1990. Reconsideration of the decision on the
 On September 7, 1975, Erlinda Matias Since Avelino could not be located, ground that the same is not in
(16 years old) married Avelino Parangan summons was served by publication in accordance with the evidence and the
Dagdag (20 years old) at the Iglesia the Olongapo News, a newspaper of law but it was denied by the Trial Court
Filipina Independent Church in Cuyapo, general circulation, for three days in in an Order which states that, ‘Mere
Nueva Ecija. Their marriage certificate September 1990. A hearing was also alcoholism and abusiveness are not
was issued by the Office of the Local conducted to establish jurisdictional enough to show psychological
Civil Registrar of the Municipality of facts. Thereafter, on December 17, incapacity. Nor is abandonment. These
Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, on October 20, 1990, the date set for presentation of are common in marriage. There must be
1988. evidence, only Erlinda and her counsel showing that these traits, stemmed
 They had two children together, Avelyn appeared. Erlinda testified and from psychological incapacity existing
(born in 1978) and Eden (born in 1982). presented her sister-in-law, Virginia at the time of celebration of the
Their birth certificates were issued by Dagdag, as her only witness. marriage.’ However, in the case at bar,
the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of  Virginia testified that she is married to abandonment is prolonged, he failed to
the Municipality of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, the brother of Avelino. She testified provide for his family indicative of the
also on October 20, 1988. that Erlinda and Avelino always failure of the husband to comply with
 A week after the wedding, Avelino quarrelled, and that Avelino never the essential marital obligations.
started leaving his family without stayed for long at the couple’s house.  SolGen filed an appeal to the CA, saying
explanation. He would disappear for  The trial court issued an Order giving that the lower court erred in declaring
months, suddenly reappear, then the investigating prosecutor until Erlinda’s marriage with Avelino Dagdag
disappear again. When he was with his January 2, 1991, to manifest in writing on the ground of psychological
family, he indulged in drinking sprees whether or not he would present incapacity of the latter. CA however,
dismissed SolGen’s appeal, which brings was not even alleged. The investigating
us to this case. prosecutor was likewise not given an
 SolGen contends that the Court of opportunity to present controverting
appeals made an erroneous and evidence since the trial court’s decision
incorrect interpretation of the phrase was prematurely rendered.
“psychological incapacity” and an
incorrect application hereof to the facts
of the case.
Issue:
 W/N the trial court and the Court of
Appeals correctly declared the marriage
as null and void under Article 36 of the
Family Code, on the ground that the
husband suffers from psychological
incapacity as he is emotionally
immature and irresponsible, a habitual
alcoholic, and a fugitive from justice
Judgment:
“The present petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22,
1993, in CA-G.R. CV No. 34378 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.”
Held:
 No. Erlinda failed to comply with
guideline No. 2 listed by Republic v.
Court of Appeals and Molina on
interpretation of application of Art. 36,
FC which requires that the root cause of
psychological incapacity must be
medically or clinically identified and
sufficiently proven by experts. No
psychiatrist or medical doctor testified
as to the alleged psychological
incapacity of her husband. Further, the
allegation that the husband is a fugitive
from justice was not sufficiently proven,
the crime for which he was arrested

Republic V Dagdag

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic V Dagdag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic v.

You might also like