Case Digest (G.R. No. 126010)
Facts:
Lucita Estrella Hernandez v. Court of Appeals and Mario C. Hernandez, G.R. No. 126010, December 08, 1999, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lucita Estrella Hernandez and private respondent Mario C. Hernandez were married on January 1, 1981; they had three children born in 1982, 1985 and 1989. On July 10, 1992, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Tagaytay City, alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations. She alleged longstanding failure to support, habitual drinking, gambling and womanizing, cohabitation with another woman (who bore an illegitimate child), physical abuse (including an incident causing her hospitalization), and transmission of gonorrhea to her in 1986. She also sought custody of the children, monthly support for them, and declaration that certain real property was her exclusive property.
Respondent failed to file an answer and the RTC ordered an investigation for collusion; the provincial prosecutor found none and recommended trial. Petitioner testified and presented documentary evidence (medical treatment records, deed and title to the land she purchased prior to and during the marriage, a handwritten letter, and birth records). A corroborating witness described respondent as a habitual drinker, womanizer and neglectful father. The RTC, acting through Judge Eleuterio F. Guerrero, dismissed the petition on April 10, 1993, reasoning that the acts relied upon by petitioner were grounds for legal separation under Article 55, Family Code, or for annulment under other provisions only if the ground existed at the time of marriage; fraud (the STD) occurred five years after the marriage and therefore could not support annulment under Article 46(3) read with Article 45(3). The RTC concluded petitioner failed to prove psychological incapacity at the time of solemnization.
The Court of Appeals affirmed on January 30, 1996, citing Santos v. Court of Appeals, holding that psychological incapacity must exist at the time of marriage and that chronic vices, sexual infidelity, gambling and abandonment are not per se psychological incapacity. Petitioner filed a petition for revi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner prove that private respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of the marriage (so as to render the marriage void under Article 36, Family Code)?
- Can the respondent’s later manifestations—habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment, gambling, cohabitation and transmission of an STD—constitute psychological incapacity warranting annulment when those acts became manifest after marriage?
- If annulment is denied, are petitioner’s claims for permanent custody, monthly support and declaration of exclusive owner...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)