Najera vs. Najera

Facts:

Digna A. Najera v. Eduardo J. Najera, G.R. No. 164817, July 03, 2009, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Digna A. Najera filed on January 27, 1997 a verified petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 68, seeking declaration of nullity of her marriage under Article 36, Family Code, with an alternative prayer for legal separation and application for appointment as administrator pendente lite of the conjugal partnership. She alleged that respondent Eduardo J. Najera was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the marriage and that such incapacity manifested after solemnization; she sought annulment, alternatively legal separation, dissolution and equal division of the conjugal partnership, and forfeiture of respondent’s share under Articles 42(2) and 63(2) of the Family Code. The case proceeded in the RTC by ordinary trial; the Solicitor General appeared; service by publication was ordered; pre-trial produced a Joint Manifestation/ Motion to dissolve and equally divide the conjugal partnership; and the prosecuting attorney submitted a compliance finding no collusion.

At trial petitioner testified and presented three witnesses: her mother, psychologist Cristina R. Gates, and SPO1 Sonny Dela Cruz (PNP). Petitioner recounted recurrent jealousy by respondent, substance use (alcohol and marijuana), recurrent quarreling, an incident on July 3, 1994 when respondent allegedly attacked her with a bolo causing injuries (police blotter and clinic record admitted), his taking of personal belongings and subsequent abandonment, and his later "jumping ship" in Los Angeles. Psychologist Gates prepared a report diagnosing respondent with Borderline Personality Disorder and concluded that the disorder was incurable and rooted in a dysfunctional family background, but Gates did not personally examine respondent and relied largely on petitioner’s account.

On March 31, 2000 the RTC rendered judgment decreeing only legal separation and ordering dissolution and equal division of the conjugal partnership pursuant to the parties’ Joint Manifestation/Motion; annulment was denied. The RTC’s denial of annulment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a decision dated February 23, 2004 (CA-G.R. CV No. 68053); the CA later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 5, 2004. Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging (among others) the Court of Appeals’ alleged failure to give weight to a decision of the National Appell...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to give controlling effect to the Decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal?
• Did petitioner prove that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code,...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)