Marcos v.

Marcos
G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
This is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the July
24, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals , reversing the previous ruling of RTC in favor of the
petitioner.
FACTS:
Brenda B. Marcos married to Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. Alleging that
the husband failed to provide material support to the family and have resorted to physical
abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of their marriage on the ground
that Wilson Marcos has psychological incapacity. The appellee submitted herself to
psychological examination, while the appellant on the other hand, did not.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a
physician is a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.
2. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological
incapacity.
ANSWER:
1. No, psychological examination is not a requirement for declaring a person as such.
2. No, the Court was not convince, based on the evidence presented, that it constitute
psychological incapacity.
REASONING:
Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of marriage, may be established
by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however that the respondent
should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a condition since quo non for such
declaration. Although this court is sufficiently convince that the respondent failed to provide
material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the
totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is
absolutely no showing that this defects were already present at the inception of the marriage
or that they are incurable. Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that
he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. It was
during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral
support and even left the family home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to
the said period and not to the inception of marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence
showing that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi
driver. In sum, this court cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of petitioner
to show that the alleged psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability; and for her failure to observe the guidelines outlined in Molina.
HOLDING:
The petition is DENIED and assailed Decision AFFIRMED, except that portion requiring personal
medical examination as a condition sine qua non to a finding of psychological incapacity.


Reyes v. Luciano
G.R. No. 48219, February 28, 1979

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
06928 SP, dismissing the petition to annul the order of the respondent Judge directing the
petitioner to give support pendente lite to his wife, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, private respondent
herein, in the amount of P4,000.00 a month.
FACTS:
On March 10 1976, defendant, Manuel Reyes went to his wife Celia Ilustre-Reyes and attacked
the plaintiff with the intention to kill her, were it not for plaintiffs father, he would have
succeeded killing her. On May 26, 1976, the defendant attack again the plaintiff at their Bel-Air
apartments, the latter is recued by her driver due to her screams for help. This incident
prompted the plaintiff to rush to Precinct 5 at United Nations Avenue, Manila Metropolitan
Police for fear of further injury and for assistance and protection. Private petitioner, Celia-
Ilustre Reyes, filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City a complaint
dated June 3, 1976 against her husband, Manuel Reyes for legal separation on the ground that
defendant had attempted to kill her. On the course of the hearing of the application for support
pendente lite, the petitioner Manuel Reyes alleged that his wife committed adultery but
presented no evindence.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not adultery of the wife was a defense in an action for support.
2. Whether or not support can be administered during the pendency of an action.
ANSWER:
1. Yes, provided that Adultery is established by competent evidence. No, in the case at bar.
2. Yes, support can be administered during the pendency of an action.
REASONING:
The Supreme Court in this case held that mere allegations of adultery will not bar the
respondent, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, her right to receive support pendente lite. Support can be
administered during the pendency of such cases. Adultery is a good defense and if properly
proved and sustained wig defeat the action. In determining the amount to be awarded as
support pendente lite it is not necessary to go fully into the merit of the case, it being sufficient
that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence which it may deem sufficient to
enable it to justly resolve the application, one way or the other, in view of the merely
provisional character of the resolution to be entered. It is enough that the facts be established
by affidavits or documentary evidence apprearing in the record.
HOLDING:
The Petition is Denied, CA decision AFFIRMED with modifications that the support pendente lite
at the rate of P4,000.00 a month should commence March 1, 1979





Republic v. Nolasco
G.R. No. 94053, March 17, 1993

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
This is a petition for review brought by the Republic for the subsequent affirmation of the
Regional Trial Courts Decision by the Court of Appeals on the petition for the declaration of
presumptive death of the wife of the respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent, Nolasco, a seaman met Janet Monica Parker, a British subject, in a bar in England.
From that meeting onwards, Janet Monica Parker lived with the respondent Nolasco on his ship
for six months. On January 15, 1992, respondent married Janet Monica Parker. After the
marriage the respondent obtained another employment contract as a seaman and left his wife
with his parents in San Jose, Antique. Sometime on January 1983, respondent received a letter
from his mother informing him that Janet Monica had given birth to his son. The same letter
informed him that Janet Monica had left Antique. Nolasco went home and cut short his
contract to find Janet Monicas whereabouts. He did so by securing another seamans contract
going to London. He wrote several letters to the bar where they first met but it was all
returned. On 1988 Gregorio Nolasco file a petition for a declaration of presumptive death of
Janet Monica.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent had a well-founded belief that his wife, Janet Monica, is already
dead.
ANSWER:
No, the respondent failed to establish such well-founded belief that his wife is already dead.
REASONING:
The Court believes that respondent, Nolasco, failed to conduct a search for his missing wife
with such diligence as to give rise to a well-founded belief, that she is dead. The Court also
considers that the investigation allegedly conducted by respondent in his attempt to ascertain
Janet Monicas whereabouts is to sketchy to form the basis of a well-founded belief that she
was already dead. When he arrived in San Jose, Antique, instead of seeking the help of local
authorities to find his wife, he went to secure another seamans contract and went to London, a
city of millions of inhabitants, to look for her there.
HOLDING:
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals are reversed and nullified.











Santos, Sr. v CA
G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
This is a petition for review to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals granting custody of
six-year old Leouel Santos Jr., to his maternal grandparents and not to his father, Santos, Sr.
FACTS:
Leouel Santos Sr., an army lieutenant, and Julia Bedia a nurse by profession, were married in
Iloilo City in 1986. They have one child, Leouel Santos Jr., who was born on July 18, 1987. From
the time the boy was release from the hospital until sometime thereafter, he had been in the
care and custody of his maternal grandparents, private respondents herein, Leopoldo and
Ofelia Bedia. Petitioner and wife Julia agreed to place Leouel Jr. in the temporary custody of the
latter's parents, the respondent spouses Bedia. The latter alleged that they paid for all the
hospital bills, as well as the subsequent support of the boy because petitioner could not afford
to do so. Julia Bedia-Santos, left for United States to work. Petitioner alleged that he is not
aware of her whereabouts and his efforts to locate her in the United States proved futile.
Private respondents claim that although abroad, their daughter Julia had been sending financial
support to them for her son. On September 2, 1990, petitioner along with his two brothers
visited the Bedia household, where three-year old Leouel Jr. was staying. Private respondents
contend that through deceit and false pretensions, petitioner abducted the boy and
clandestinely spirited him away to his hometown in Bacong, Negros Oriental.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner should be properly awarded custody of the minor, Leouel Jr.
ANSWER:
Yes, the legitimate father is still preferred over the grandparents.
REASONING:
The minor should be given to the legitimate father. When a parent entrusts the custody of a
minor to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in a document, what is given is merely
temporary custody and it does not constitute a renunciation of parental authority. Only in case
of parents death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised by
surviving grandparent. The court held the contentions of the grandparents are insufficient as to
remove petitioners parental authority and the concomitant right to have custody over the
minor. Private respondents demonstrated love and affection for the boy, notwithstanding, the
legitimate father is still preferred over the grandparents. The latters wealth is not a deciding
factor, particularly because there is no proof that at the present time, petitioner is no position
to support the boy. While petitioner's previous inattention is inexcusable and merits only the
severest criticism, it cannot be construed as abandonment. His appeal of the unfavorable
decision against him and his efforts to keep his only child in his custody may be regarded as
serious efforts to rectify his past misdeeds. To award him custody would help enhance the bond
between parent and son. The court also held that his being a soldier is likewise no bar to allow
him custody over the boy. So many men in uniform, who are assigned to different parts of the
country in the service of the nation, are still the natural guardians of their children. Also,
petitioner's employment of trickery in spiriting away his boy from his in-laws, though
unjustifiable, is likewise not a ground to wrest custody from him.
HOLDING:
The petition is granted.