Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 137 views

    Ting v. Velez-Ting

    Uploaded by

    Verlin Amarante Entena
    The Supreme Court denied Carmen Velez-Ting's petition to nullify her 18-year marriage to Benjamin Ting. While Carmen alleged that Benjamin was a habitual drunkard, gambler, and refused financial support, the Court found this insufficient to prove any pre-existing psychological defect. Two psychiatric evaluations also conflicted on whether Benjamin had a personality disorder. Given the presumption of marriage validity, the evidence did not adequately prove Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated at the time of marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ting v. Velez-Ting

    Uploaded by

    Verlin Amarante Entena
    137 views1 page
    The Supreme Court denied Carmen Velez-Ting's petition to nullify her 18-year marriage to Benjamin Ting. While Carmen alleged that Benjamin was a habitual drunkard, gambler, and refused financial support, the Court found this insufficient to prove any pre-existing psychological defect. Two psychiatric evaluations also conflicted on whether Benjamin had a personality disorder. Given the presumption of marriage validity, the evidence did not adequately prove Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated at the time of marriage.

    Original Description:

    Ting v. Velez-Ting

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied Carmen Velez-Ting's petition to nullify her 18-year marriage to Benjamin Ting. While Carmen alleged that Benjamin was a habitual drunkard, gambler, and refused financial support, the Court found this insufficient to prove any pre-existing psychological defect. Two psychiatric evaluations also conflicted on whether Benjamin had a personality disorder. Given the presumption of marriage validity, the evidence did not adequately prove Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated at the time of marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    137 views1 page

    Ting v. Velez-Ting

    Uploaded by

    Verlin Amarante Entena
    The Supreme Court denied Carmen Velez-Ting's petition to nullify her 18-year marriage to Benjamin Ting. While Carmen alleged that Benjamin was a habitual drunkard, gambler, and refused financial support, the Court found this insufficient to prove any pre-existing psychological defect. Two psychiatric evaluations also conflicted on whether Benjamin had a personality disorder. Given the presumption of marriage validity, the evidence did not adequately prove Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated at the time of marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Ting v.

    Velez-Ting (March 31, 2009)


    FACTS
    7/26/1975: Petitioner Benjamin Ting married respondent Carmen Velez-Ting (whom he met in
    1972 in medical school).
    They resided at Carmens family home, and Benjamin would later work for Velez Hospital owned
    by Carmens family.
    After 18 years of marriage, Carmen filed a petition for declaration of nullity based on Article 36
    of the Family Code, citing that Benjamin was a habitual drunkard and a gambler, and that he
    would refuse to give financial support to his family.
    Lower court declared marriage null and void, referring to Dr. Onates findings that Benjamin was
    psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential obligations of marriage. Said decision was
    sustained by the Court of Appeals although having initially reversed it.
    ISSUE
    Whether or not the husband was psychologically incapacitated.
    RESOLUTION
    NO, Benjamin is not psychologically incapacitated. As such, Carmens petition is denied and their
    marriage cannot be nullified.
    There is no abandonment of the doctrine of Molina (which outlined 8 guidelines for interpretation
    and application of FC Article 6). It is merely suggested that these stringent requirements be
    relaxed, particularly on the guideline on expert opinions which are not in all cases available to the
    parties. Also, the need for expert opinion is not a sine qua non condition in granting petitions for
    nullifying marriages.
    In this case, since the parties have full capacity to avail of expert opinions, then these should be
    presented and accordingly weighed in court.
    Carmen failed to prove that petitioners defects were present at the time of the celebration of their
    marriage. Prior to their marriage, she already knew that he would occasionally drink and gamble,
    but such is insufficient to prove any pre-existing psychological defect that is incurable.
    Evaluation of two psychiatrists do not strengthen respondents allegations. Dr. Onate testifies that
    petitioners behavior is a positive indication of a personality disorder while Dr. Obra maintained
    that there is nothing wrong with his personality. Greater weight should be afforded to the latters
    testimony since it had additionally considered a report by a psychiatrist in South Africa who
    personally examined Benjamin, as well as Obras interview with his brothers.
    Presumption always favors validity of the marriage. In this case, the evidence of psychological
    incapacity is inadequate to declare Benjamin psychologically incapacitated.

    You might also like