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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 559 views

    P10 Pesca v. Pesca Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marissa Mitra Luna
    The Supreme Court ruled that the cases of Santos and Molina, which clarified the definition of psychological incapacity, apply retroactively to the present case. The petitioner, Lorna Pesca, filed for annulment of her marriage to respondent Zosimo Pesca on grounds of psychological incapacity. However, based on Santos and Molina, psychological incapacity refers to a serious personality disorder, not emotional immaturity. As petitioner only alleged emotional immaturity and irresponsibility on the part of the respondent, she did not establish psychological incapacity. Therefore, the marriage remained valid.

    Copyright:

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

    P10 Pesca v. Pesca Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marissa Mitra Luna
    559 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the cases of Santos and Molina, which clarified the definition of psychological incapacity, apply retroactively to the present case. The petitioner, Lorna Pesca, filed for annulment of her marriage to respondent Zosimo Pesca on grounds of psychological incapacity. However, based on Santos and Molina, psychological incapacity refers to a serious personality disorder, not emotional immaturity. As petitioner only alleged emotional immaturity and irresponsibility on the part of the respondent, she did not establish psychological incapacity. Therefore, the marriage remained valid.

    Original Description:

    Pesca v. Pesca digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the cases of Santos and Molina, which clarified the definition of psychological incapacity, apply retroactively to the present case. The petitioner, Lorna Pesca, filed for annulment of her marriage to respondent Zosimo Pesca on grounds of psychological incapacity. However, based on Santos and Molina, psychological incapacity refers to a serious personality disorder, not emotional immaturity. As petitioner only alleged emotional immaturity and irresponsibility on the part of the respondent, she did not establish psychological incapacity. Therefore, the marriage remained valid.

    Copyright:

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

    P10 Pesca v. Pesca Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marissa Mitra Luna
    The Supreme Court ruled that the cases of Santos and Molina, which clarified the definition of psychological incapacity, apply retroactively to the present case. The petitioner, Lorna Pesca, filed for annulment of her marriage to respondent Zosimo Pesca on grounds of psychological incapacity. However, based on Santos and Molina, psychological incapacity refers to a serious personality disorder, not emotional immaturity. As petitioner only alleged emotional immaturity and irresponsibility on the part of the respondent, she did not establish psychological incapacity. Therefore, the marriage remained valid.

    Copyright:

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

    P10 Pesca v.

    Pesca AUTHOR: Luna


    GR No. 136921 NOTES:
    April 17, 2001] Lorna Guillen Pesca (Petitioner) Female v. Zosimo a. Pesca
    TOPIC: Retroactivity of laws (Respondent) Male
    PONENTE: Escolin, J.
    CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Gross and inexcusable ignorance of the law may not be the basis of good faith, but possible,
    excusable ignorance may be such basis.
    Emergency Recit: Petitioner and respondent were married. Into the relationship, they had 4 children. Eventually the
    marriage turned sour and the man’s “true colors” showed itself. He beats his wife and children. He even threatened his
    wife’s life in the presence of his own children. The wife wanted to annul the marriage through Art 36 of the FC,
    Psychology Incapacitated but the SC ruled that Psychological Incapacity does not equate to extremely low intelligence,
    immaturity, and like circumstance. Marriage STIL VALID.
    FACTS:

     Lorna and Zosimo met while on board and inter-island vessel.


     They got married and initially did not elope since petitioner was a college student and the other was a seaman
    but eventually did when they were able to build their own house in Caloocan City.
     The union begot 4 children
     Eventually into the marriage, “True colors” of Zosimo was apparent.
     These are habitual drinking, cruelty and violence. One time respondent chased petitioner with a loaded
    shotgun and threatened to kill her in the presence of her children because she wanted him to lessen his
    drinking habit.
     The mother and children left the conjugal home only to return two months after, hoping that things will
    change but it didn’t. After an hour of beating petitioner, Lorna and the children finally decided to leave for
    good.
     Lorna submitted herself for medical examination that diagnosed her injuries as contusions and abrasions. She
    used this as evidence to file a complaint in Brgy. authorities and a case was filed respondent for slight physical
    injuries.
     She invoke Art. 36 (Psychological incapacity) to declare her marriage null and void
     Respondent denied that he was psychologically incapacitated.
     RTC declared the marriage void ab initio. CA Reversed due to the lack of evidence of Psychological Incapacity
    according to the cases of Santos and Molina.
     Petitioner invoked the ruling in Santos and Molina case should only be a guide and have no retroactive
    application and warrant further proceedings and not dismissal.

    ISSUE: W/N Santos and Molina have retroactive effect in the case at bar in terms of identifying the meaning of
    Psychological Incapacity?
    HELD: Yes. Court decisions form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
    RATIO:

    The case of Santos shed light in the meaning of the phrase “Psychological Incapacity” and the case of Molina
    strengthened such meaning. This case should be used to not overlap psychological incapacity to extremely low
    intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstance. Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than Mental NOT
    Physical incapacity. No doubt that the two cases denote serious personality disorders, Petitioner assailing emotional
    immaturity and irresponsibility does NOT equate to psychological incapacity. Petition DENIED. Marriage is valid and
    subsisting.

    You might also like