Case Digest - Ting vs. Ting

G.R. No.
166562, March 31, 2009
BENJAMIN G. TING, PETITIONER, VS. CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING, RESPONDENT.
FACTS:
 Petitioner Benjamin Ting and Respondent Carmen Velez-Ting first met in 1972 while they were classmates in medical school.
They fell in love, and they were wed on July 26, 1975 in Cebu City when respondent was already pregnant with their first child.
The couple begot six (6) children.
 On October 21, 1993, after being married for more than 18 years to petitioner and while their youngest child was only two years
old, the respondent filed a verified petition before the RTC of Cebu City praying for the declaration of nullity of their marriage
based on Article 36 of the Family Code. She claimed that the petitioner suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of
the celebration of their marriage, which, however, only became manifest thereafter.
 The respondent's allegations of the petitioner's psychological incapacity consisted of the following:
1. Benjamin's alcoholism, which adversely affected his family relationship and his profession
2. Benjamin's violent nature brought about by his excessive and regular drinking
3. His compulsive gambling habit, as a result of which Benjamin found it necessary to sell the family car twice and the property
which he inherited from his father in order to pay off his debts because he no longer had money to pay the same
4. Benjamin's irresponsibility and immaturity as shown by his failure and refusal to give regular financial support to his family
 The petitioner denied being psychologically incapacitated. He maintained that he is a respectable person, as his peers would
confirm. He said that he is an active member of social and athletic clubs and would drink and gamble only for social reasons and
for leisure. Benjamin also insisted that he gave his family financial support within his means whenever he could and would only
get angry at respondent for lavishly spending his hard-earned money on unnecessary things.
 The respondent's testimony regarding the petitioner's drinking and gambling habits and violent behavior was corroborated by
Susana Wasawas, who served as nanny to the spouses' children from 1987 to 1992.
 Both presented expert witnesses (psychiatrist) to refute each other’s claim.
 On January 9, 1998, the lower court rendered its Decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void.
 Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA, who then rendered a Decision reversing the trial court's ruling. It faulted the trial court's
finding, stating that no proof was adduced to support the conclusion that Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated at the time
he married Carmen since Dr. Oñate's conclusion was based only on theories and not on established fact, contrary to the guidelines
set forth in Santos v. Court of Appeals and in Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Molina
 Because of this, the respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Molina guidelines should not be applied to this
case since the Molina decision was promulgated only on February13, 1997, or more than five years after she had filed her petition
with the RTC. The CA denied the motion.
 Undaunted, respondent filed a petition for certiorari. In a Resolution dated March 5, 2003, this Court granted the petition and
directed the CA to resolve the motion for reconsideration. The CA decided to reconsider its previous ruling and issued an
Amended Decision reversing its first ruling and sustaining the trial court's decision.
 A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but the same was denied by the CA.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA violated the rule on stare decisis when it refused to follow the guidelines set forth under the Santos and
Molina cases;
2. 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 liberalized;
3. Whether or not the CA's decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void is in accordance with
law and jurisprudence.
RULING:
 Yes. The interpretation or construction of a law by courts constitutes a part of the law as of the date the statute is enacted. It is
only when a prior ruling of this Court is overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied
prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith, in accordance therewith under
the familiar rule of lex prospicit, non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward).
 No. The Court found it necessary that each case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not
on the basis of a priori (theoretical) assumptions, predilections (preference) or generalizations but according to its own attendant
facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers
in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.
 No. The Court found the totality of evidence adduced by respondent insufficient to prove that petitioner is psychologically unfit to
discharge the duties expected of him as a husband, and more particularly, that he suffered from such psychological incapacity as
of the date of the marriage eighteen (18) years ago. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's and the appellate court's rulings
declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void ab initio.
The evaluation of the two psychiatrists should have been the decisive evidence. However, the Court is not convinced that the
opinions provided by these experts strengthened respondent's allegation of psychological incapacity. There appears to be greater
weight in Dr. Obra's opinion because, aside from analyzing the transcript of Benjamin's deposition similar to what Dr. Oñate did,
Dr. Obra also took into consideration the psychological evaluation report furnished by another psychiatrist in South Africa who
personally examined Benjamin, as well as his personal interview with Benjamin's brothers. Logically, therefore, the balance tilts
in favor of Dr. Obra's findings.
References
 Article 36 of the Family Code
A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.
 Molina Doctrine (G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997)
The term "psychological incapacity," to be a ground for then nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, must
be able to pass the following tests:
1. The incapacity must be psychological or mental, not physical, in nature;

2. The psychological incapacity must relate to the inability, not mere refusal, to understand, assume end discharge the basic
marital obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering mutual help and support;
3. The psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is contracted although its overt manifestations and the
marriage may occur only thereafter; and
4. The mental disorder must be grave or serious and incurable.
 Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te
The Court declared that it may have been inappropriate to impose a rigid set of rules, as the one in Molina, in resolving all
cases of psychological incapacity. Instead of serving as a guideline, Molina unintentionally became a straightjacket, forcing
all cases involving psychological incapacity to fit into and be bound by it, which is not only contrary to the intention of the
law but unrealistic as well because, with respect to psychological incapacity, no case can be considered as on "all fours" with
another.

Case Digest - Ting vs. Ting

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Case Digest - Ting vs. Ting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

166562, March 31, 2009

BENJAMIN G. TING, PETITIONER, VS. CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING, RESPONDENT.

 Both presented expert witnesses (psychiatrist) to refute each other’s claim.

 Article 36 of the Family Code

 Molina Doctrine (G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997)

1. The incapacity must be psychological or mental, not physical, in nature;

 Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te

You might also like