Case Summary (G.R. No. 174451)

Case Background

• Parties Involved: Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar (Petitioner) vs. Rey C. Alcazar (Respondent).
• Legal Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals decision affirming the dismissal of the annulment of marriage.
• Initial Filing: The complaint was filed on August 22, 2002, with a claim of psychological incapacity of the respondent.

Legal Principle: Annulment of Marriage

• Applicable Law: Article 45(5) of the Family Code of the Philippines, which allows annulment if either party is physically incapable of consummating the marriage.

• Key Definition:

  • "Physical incapacity" refers to the inability to engage in sexual intercourse, which must be permanent and incurable.

• Essential Requirements:

  • The incapacity must exist at the time of marriage.
  • Evidence must demonstrate the incapacity is permanent and prevents fulfilling marital obligations.

Evidence and Court Findings

• Petitioner's Claims:

  • The respondent did not communicate or live with the petitioner after leaving for Saudi Arabia.
  • Psychological evaluation indicated the respondent suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, rendering him incapable of fulfilling marital duties.

• Court's Conclusion:

  • The trial court found no evidence of psychological incapacity as defined by law.
  • The petitioner admitted to sexual intercourse occurring post-marriage, contradicting claims of physical incapacity.

• Key Findings:

  • The absence of contact and cohabitation does not equate to psychological incapacity.
  • Petitioner’s evidence lacked sufficient proof of respondent's condition at the time of marriage.

Legal Procedure and Appeals

• Initial Ruling: The Regional Trial Court dismissed the annulment petition on June 9, 2004.
• Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on May 24, 2006.
• Final Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous rulings, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the petitioner.

Cross-References to Other Laws

• Family Code Articles:
  • Article 36: Addresses psychological incapacity as grounds for declaring a marriage void.
  • Article 45: Relates to annulment based on physical incapacity.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of lower courts, emphasizing the importance of clear and convincing evidence to prove psychological incapacity.
• The case reinforces that mere abandonment or lack of communication does not constitute grounds for annulment under the Family Code.
• Psychological incapacity must be medically identified and proven to exist at the time of marriage, not merely infer

...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 174451)

Case Summary

• This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar against respondent Rey C. Alcazar.
• The petition seeks to reverse the Decision dated 24 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision dated 9 June 2004, dismissing Alcazar's Complaint for annulment of her marriage to Alcazar.

Background of the Case

• Petitioner and respondent were married on 11 October 2000 by Rev. Augusto G. Pabustan.
• They resided together for only five days in Occidental Mindoro before returning to Manila, where respondent left for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on 23 October 2000.
• During his employment in Riyadh, respondent failed to communicate with petitioner despite her multiple attempts to reach him.
• Upon his return to the Philippines in March 2002, respondent did not contact petitioner and instead lived with his parents.

Allegations of the Petitioner

• Petitioner claimed that respondent's failure to communicate and live with her indicated his physical incapacity to consummate their marriage, warranting annulment under Article 45(5) of the Family Code.
• Petitioner asserted that there was no chance for reconciliation and filed a Complaint for annulment on 22 August 2002.

Court Proceedings

• The RTC issued an Order on 27 November 2002 for a public prosecutor investigation to ensure no collusion existed between the parties.
• The public prosecutor's report confirmed no collusion and recommended a full trial.
• Petitioner presented wi

...continue reading