Case Digest (G.R. No. 162368)
Facts:
Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris v. Brix Ferraris, G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Ma. Armida Perez‑Ferraris sought a declaration of nullity of her marriage with respondent Brix Ferraris on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. She alleged that respondent suffered from epilepsy and a mixed personality disorder (schizoid, dependent and avoidant types), manifested violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, extramarital affairs, abandonment, and a preference for associating with his band over his family. Dr. Dayan testified for petitioner to support a diagnosis, but the particulars of her examination and the causal basis for the alleged disorder were contested.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 151, rendered judgment on February 20, 2001 denying the petition for declaration of nullity; the RTC held that epilepsy and the evidence presented did not establish psychological incapacity under Article 36. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in an order dated April 20, 2001. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a decision dated April 30, 2003, affirmed the RTC in toto, finding that the evidence did not convincingly establish psychological incapacity, that Dr. Dayan failed to explain her diagnosis or demonstrate a natal or supervening disabling factor, and that petitioner bore the onus of proof. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by resolution dated February 24, 2004.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45; the Supreme Court denied the petition by Resolution dated June 9, 2004 for failure to show reversible error. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of that Resolution. The Court required respondent to file comment, but respondent failed to do so and was deemed to...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC’s denial of the petition for declaration of nullity?
- Was respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity proved to justify annulment of marriage under Article 36 ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)