Case Digest (G.R. No. 112019)
Facts:
Leouel Santos v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia‑Santos, G.R. No. 112019, January 04, 1995, Supreme Court En Banc, Vitug, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Leouel Santos (then a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army) and private respondent Julia Rosario Bedia‑Santos were married on 20 September 1986 in Iloilo City (civil ceremony before MTC Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro, followed by a church wedding). The couple lived with Julia’s parents; on 18 July 1987 Julia gave birth to a son. Marital difficulties arose from alleged interference by Julia’s parents and quarrels over living arrangements and other domestic matters.On 18 May 1988 Julia left for the United States to work as a nurse. She telephoned Leouel only once, on 1 January 1989, promising to return after her contract expired in July 1989, but she did not return. When Leouel traveled to the U.S. for military training from 10 April to 25 August 1990, he was unable to locate or contact Julia.
Leouel filed a complaint for "Voiding of Marriage Under Article 36 of the Family Code" in the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 30 (Civil Case No. 9814). Summons were issued by publication. Julia answered (31 May 1991), denied the allegations and alleged petitioner’s irresponsibility; the provincial prosecutor found no collusion between the parties. After repeated failed pre‑trial settings Julia manifested on 25 October 1991 that she would neither appear nor submit evidence. On 6 November 1991 the trial court (Judge Enrique Garrovillo) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Leouel appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal (opinion penned by Justice Jainal Rasul, concurred in by Justices Pedro Ramirez and Ramon Mabutas, Jr.).
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45). The Court noted petitioner’s non‑compliance with Circular 28‑91 (certification of non‑forum shopping) and addresse...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court dismiss or deny the petition for non‑compliance with the certification of non‑forum shopping required by Circular 28‑91?
- On the merits, does the factual showing in this case establish psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code so as to declare the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)