Hontiveros, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
132 SCRA 745
Facts:
Petitioner Alejandro Hontiveros, Jr. and Private respondent Brenda M Hernandez are the parents of Margaux H. Hontiveros born on Nov. 27, 1981.
From Nov. 1981 to June 1982 the child is under the custody of the mother. On June 21, 1982 Alejandro Hontiveros, Jr. passed by the house of the respondent to take the child and promised to returned it but it never happen.
On August 24, 1982 the mother file a petition for habeas corpus against the father to produce their child Margaux. On the other hand the petition Alejandro filed a petition for custody of the minor Migaux under the special proceeding no. 9788. However, Alejandro abandoned the petition, for which reason Judge Rizalina Bonifacio Vera dismissed said petition.
On May 24, 1983 Alejandro file an urgent ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent Brenda to take Margaux outside the country (U.S.). On May 30, 1983 the petition was denied because the motion of Brenda for withdrawal of habeas corpus was granted because it becomes moot and academic when Margaux appeared before Judge Rañada. The petition of Alejandro is just an ancillary action to Habeas corpus. Hence, Alejandro filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the respondent Judge Cainglet for the reason of lack of factual and legal justification on August 17, 1983.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the order of respondent judge dated May 30, 1983 was issued with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitions of the petitioners.
2. Whether or not Alejandro is entitled to the custody of his child Margaux.
Ruling:
The petition is hereby denied with cost against petitioner.
Held:
People vs. Aragon
100 Phil. 1033
Facts:
On September 28, 1925, the accused Proceso Aragon, under the name of Proceso Rosima, contracted marriage with Maria Gorrea in Cebu. While his marriage with Maria Gorrea was subsisting, the accused contracted another marriage with Maria Faicol on August 27, 1934 in Iloilo under the name of Proceso Aragon.
When the first wife of the accused died on August 5, 1939, the accused contracted another marriage with Jesusa C. Maglasang on Octeber 3, 1953 in Cebu.
The Court of First instance of Cebu held that the accused could not legally contract marriage with Jesusa C. Magsalang with out the declaration of nullity of his second marriage. The court also declared that the accused is guilty of bigamy.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of bigamy.
2. Whether or not declaration of nullity of marriage is necessary in contracting another marriage.
Ruling:
The judgement appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendant-appellant is acquitted with out prejudice to his prosecution for having contracted the second bigamous marriage.
Held:
1. The last marriage is valid because the second marriage of the accused was not renewed after the death of the first. Hence, the accused did not commit bigamy.
2. Since the second marriage was obviously void and illegal, there is no need for declaration of its nullity. Hence, the last marriage of the accused was valid.
Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te
G.R. No. 161793 Feb. 13, 2009
Facts:
Edward is the petitioner and Rowena is the respondent. The two are involved in a whirlwind relationship lasted more or less 6 months. They met in January 1996, eloped in March, exchange vows in May, and parted ways in June. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties are psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and respondent’s, that of narcissistic and anti social personality disorder.
On July 30, 2001 the trial court declared the marriage null and void on the grounds of both of them are psychological incapacitated. On August 5, 2003 the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court on the grounds that the psychologist didn’t examine the respondent personally. The evidence fell short. The Court of Appeals has the same ruling.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the petition for annulment should be granted.
2. Whether or not the assessment of the expert is conclusive.
3. Whether or not the assessment done by the psychologist of the petitioner can be accepted even if the former don’t examine the respondent personally.
4. How should the court judge the issue of psychological incapacity?
Ruling:
Annulment is granted the decision of the appellate court and CA is reversed.
Held:
1. The assessment of a psychologist/expert is not conclusive. However, this will assist the courts, who are no experts in the field of psychology, to arrive at an intelligent and judicious determination of the case.
2. There is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a physician if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.
3. The courts should judge the provision on a case to case basis, guided by experience, the findings of the experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions or church tribunals, because the provision itself was taken from the canon law.