Case Summary (G.R. No. 166562)
Petitioner
Benjamin G. Ting
Respondent
Carmen M. Velez-Ting
Key Dates
• Marriage: July 26, 1975
• Nullity petition filed: October 21, 1993
• RTC decision: January 9, 1998
• CA first decision: October 19, 2000
• CA amended decision: November 17, 2003
• CA resolution denying reconsideration: December 13, 2004
• SC decision: March 31, 2009
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Family Code of the Philippines, Article 36 (psychological incapacity)
• Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC)
Procedural History
Carmen petitioned the RTC for absolute nullity under Article 36, alleging Benjamin’s psychological incapacity. The RTC granted nullity; the CA reversed; on certiorari, SC remanded; the CA then reinstated nullity under revised procedural rules. Benjamin sought SC review via petition for certiorari.
Factual Background
Carmen alleged that Benjamin’s habitual drinking, violent outbursts, compulsive gambling and refusal to support the family manifested a personality defect existing at marriage inception. Benjamin denied psychological incapacity, portraying his conduct as occasional social drinking and leisure gambling and counter-alleging neglect of family matters by Carmen.
Evidence and Expert Testimony
Carmen’s testimony was corroborated by the children’s former nanny. Expert opinions diverged: Dr. Pureza Trinidad-Olate, relying on deposition transcripts, diagnosed a personality disorder; Dr. Renato D. Obra, considering those transcripts, a South African psychiatric report and interviews with Benjamin’s brothers, found no psychological incapacity.
Issues
- Whether the CA disregarded stare decisis by failing to apply the Santos and Molina guidelines.
- Whether proof requirements under Article 36 have been liberalized.
- Whether the evidence establishes psychological incapacity as of marriage inception.
Analysis on Stare Decisis
The SC reaffirmed the binding effect of its precedents (Santos v. Court of Appeals; Republic v. CA and Molina) and held that new doctrines may be applied retroactively absent reliance interests under “lex prospicit, non respicit.”
Liberalization of Article 36 Proof Requirements
Citing Edward Kenneth Ngo Te v. Yu-Te and the 2003 Rules (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC), the Court confirmed that expert psychiatric or psychological reports are decisive but not indispensable; courts assess each Article 36 petition on its own facts and may order expert evaluation at pre-trial.
Assessment of Psychological Incapacity
The Court found respondent failed to prove a pre-existing, grave and incurable psychological incapacity at the time of marriage
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 166562)
Facts of the Case
- Benjamin G. Ting and Carmen Velez–Ting met as medical students in 1972 and married on July 26, 1975, when Carmen was pregnant with their first child.
- The couple initially lived in Mandaue City, then moved to Carmen’s family home in Cebu City after their second child’s birth.
- Benjamin pursued a surgical residency then switched to anesthesiology, completing his preceptorship by 1979 and joining Velez Hospital in 1980, where Carmen served as Treasurer.
- They had six children between 1975 and 1991: Dennis, James Louis, Agnes Irene, Charles Laurence, Myles Vincent, and Marie Corinne.
Procedural History
- October 21, 1993: Carmen filed a verified petition in the RTC of Cebu City for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging Benjamin’s psychological incapacity.
- January 9, 1998: RTC, Branch 23, Cebu City declared the marriage null and void ab initio, crediting expert testimony and Benjamin’s deposition admissions.
- October 19, 2000: Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, citing lack of proof under Santos v. CA and Republic v. CA and Molina guidelines.
- Carmen’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on procedural and substantive grounds.
- March 5, 2003: Supreme Court granted Carmen’s petition for certiorari and remanded for CA to resolve the motion for reconsideration.
- November 17, 2003: CA issued an Amended Decision reversing its October 19, 2000 ruling and affirming the RTC.
- December 13, 2004: CA denied Benjamin’s motion for reconsideration of the Amended Decision.
- March 31, 2009: Supreme Court resolved Benjamin’s petition for review on certiorari.
Allegations of Psychological Incapacity
- Regular and excessive drinking leading to violent behavior, insults, physical assault, and forced intercourse.
- Occasions of firearm misuse, including shooting their gate.
- Compulsive gambling requiring borrowing, pawning Carmen’s jewelry, selling the family car and inherited property to pay debts.
- Neglect of professional duties: refusal of calls, damaged reputation among surgeons.
- Refusal to provide financial support, prioritizing drinking, gambling, and personal hobbies over family obligations.
- Persistent irresponsibility and immaturity affecting spousal and parental duties.
Benjamin’s Defense
- Denied