Case Digest (G.R. No. 217993)
Facts:
Manuel R. Bakunawa III v. Nora Reyes Bakunawa, G.R. No. 217993, August 09, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Manuel R. Bakunawa III and respondent Nora Reyes Bakunawa met in 1974, married on July 26, 1975, and had three children. The marriage eventually deteriorated: Manuel worked in the provinces, drank and kept company with other women, had an extramarital affair and left Nora in 1980 to cohabit with another woman; he later purchased a house for Nora in 1985 and thereafter the couple had a third child. Over the years they separated in fact, and their conjugal property was later foreclosed after Nora failed to meet loan obligations.
On June 19, 2008 Manuel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, invoking Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity of either or both spouses. He presented his own testimony and the testimony and psychological evaluation report of psychiatrist Dr. Cecilia Villegas, who diagnosed Manuel with Intermittent Explosive Disorder and Nora with Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder. Dr. Villegas’s opinion was based on interviews with Manuel and the couple’s eldest son, Moncho; Nora did not participate in the psychiatric evaluation and no psychometric tests were administered.
The RTC granted the petition in a Decision dated March 28, 2011, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio under Article 36 and ordering the civil registries updated. Nora appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales‑Sison dated March 27, 2014, reversed and set aside the RTC decision, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish psychological incapacity. The CA denied Manuel’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated April 22, 2015.
Manuel filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45, challenging the CA’s reversal and its denial of reconsideration. ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that petitioner failed to prove psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)