Case Digest (G.R. No. 175367)
Facts:
Danilo A. Aurelio v. Vida Ma. Corazon P. Aurelio, G.R. No. 175367 (June 06, 2011), promulgated April 16, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on March 23, 1988, and have two sons. On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging that both spouses were psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at the time of the marriage and thereafter. The petition included factual allegations about lack of support, jealousy, humiliation, emotional immaturity, and a psychologist’s clinical findings diagnosing respondent with Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features and petitioner with Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder; the petition alleged these conditions were grave, incorrigible and incurable.
On November 8, 2002, petitioner moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it failed to state a cause of action and did not meet the standards established for Article 36 claims. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss in an Order dated January 14, 2003, and later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on December 17, 2003, ruling that the petition complied with the Molina guidelines (Republic v. Court of Appeals) and that whether the allegations were meritorious would depend on proofs to be adduced at trial.
Petitioner elevated the RTC’s denial by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) on February 16, 2004. The CA dismissed the Rule 65 petition in a Decision dated October 6, 2005 (CA-G.R. SP No. 82238) and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 26, 2006. Petitioner then brought a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the CA’s Decision and Resolution, presenting two issues: (1) whether the CA erred in holding respondent’s petition contained sufficient allegations to support a nullity under Article 36; and (2) whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s certiorari, claiming the RTC’s denial of the motion to dismiss amounted to grave abuse of discretion and that appeal was not an adequate remedy.
The Supreme Court considered applicable jurisprudence including Republic v. Cou...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the allegations in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage were sufficient under Article 36 of the Family Code to state a cause of action?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioner’s Rule 65 certiorari petition by failing to find that the RTC’s denial of the motion to dismiss was tainted by grave abuse of discretion and that a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)