Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
VALERIO E. KALAW, |
|
G.R. No. 166357 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PEREZ,⃰ JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
MA. ELENA
FERNANDEZ, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
September 19, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
D E C I S I O N
A finding of psychological incapacity must be supported by
well-established facts. It is the
plaintiffs burden to convince the court of the existence of these facts.
Before
the Court is a Petition for Review[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) May 27, 2004 Decision[2]
and December 15, 2004 Resolution[3]
in CA-G.R. CV No. 64240, which reversed the trial courts declaration of
nullity of the herein parties marriage.
The fallo of the assailed
Decision reads:
WHEREFOREthe appeal is GRANTED, and
the assailed Decision is SET ASIDE and VACATED while the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Factual
Antecedents
Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw (Tyrone)
and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met in 1973. They maintained a relationship and eventually
married in Hong Kong on November 4, 1976.
They had four children, Valerio (Rio), Maria Eva (Ria), Ramon Miguel
(Miggy or Mickey), and Jaime Teodoro (Jay).
Shortly after the birth of their
youngest son, Tyrone had an extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano (Jocelyn),
who gave birth to a son in March 1983.[5]
In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal
home (the house of her Kalaw in-laws) and her four children with Tyrone.[6] Meanwhile,
Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, who bore him three more children.[7]
In 1990, Tyrone went to the United
States (US) with Jocelyn and their children.
He left his four children from his marriage with Malyn in a rented house
in Valle Verde with only a househelp and a driver.[8] The househelp would just call Malyn to take
care of the children whenever any of them got sick. Also, in accordance with their custody
agreement, the children stayed with Malyn on weekends.[9]
In 1994, the two elder children, Rio
and Ria, asked for Malyns permission to go to Japan for a one-week
vacation. Malyn acceded only to learn
later that Tyrone brought the children to the US.[10] After just one year, Ria returned to the
Philippines and chose to live with Malyn.
Meanwhile, Tyrone and
Jocelyns family returned to the
Philippines and resumed physical custody of the two younger children, Miggy and
Jay. According to Malyn, from that time
on, the children refused to go to her house on weekends because of alleged
weekend plans with their father.[11]
Complaint
for declaration of nullity of marriage
On
July 6, 1994, nine years since the de
facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code.[12] He alleged that Malyn was psychologically
incapacitated to perform and comply with the essential marital obligations at
the time of the celebration of their marriage.
He further claimed that her psychological incapacity was manifested by
her immaturity and irresponsibility towards Tyrone and their children during
their co-habitation, as shown by Malyns following acts:
1.
she left the children without proper care and attention as she played
mahjong all day and all night;
2.
she left the house to party with male friends and returned in the early
hours of the following day; and
3.
she committed adultery on June 9, 1985, which act Tyrone discovered in flagrante delicto.[13]
During
trial,[14]
Tyrone narrated the circumstances of Malyns alleged infidelity. According to him, on June 9, 1985, he and his
brother-in-law, Ronald Fernandez (Malyns brother), proceeded to Hyatt Hotel and
learned that Malyn was occupying a room with a certain Benjie Guevarra
(Benjie). When he proceeded to the said
room, he saw Benjie and Malyn inside.[15] At rebuttal, Tyrone elaborated that Benjie
was wearing only a towel around his waist, while Malyn was lying in bed in her
underwear. After an exchange of words,
he agreed not to charge Malyn with adultery when the latter agreed to
relinquish all her marital and parental rights.[16] They put their agreement in writing before
Atty. Jose Palarca.
Tyrone
presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a Catholic canon
law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyns
psychological incapacity.
Dr.
Gates explained on the stand that the factual allegations regarding Malyns behavior
her sexual infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent nights-out
with friends may reflect a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).[17] NPD is present when a person is obsessed to meet her wants and needs
in utter disregard of her significant others.[18] Malyns NPD is manifest in her utter neglect of her duties as a
mother.[19]
Dr.
Gates reported that Malyns personality disorder may have been evident even
prior to her marriage because it is rooted in her family background and upbringing,
which the psychologist gathered to be materially deprived and without a proper
maternal role model.[20]
Dr.
Gates based her diagnosis on the facts revealed by her interviews with Tyrone,
Trinidad Kalaw (Tyrones sister-in-law), and the son Miggy. She also read the transcript of Tyrones
court testimony.[21]
Fr.
Healy corroborated Dr. Gates assessment.
He concluded that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform her
marital duties.[22] He explained that her psychological
incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner of her family. This role
allegedly inflated Malyns ego to the point that her needs became priority,
while her kids and husbands needs became secondary. Malyn is so self-absorbed that she is
incapable of prioritizing her familys needs.
Fr.
Healy clarified that playing mahjong and spending time with friends are not
disorders by themselves. They only constitute psychological incapacity whenever
inordinate amounts of time are spent on these activities to the detriment of
ones familial duties.[23]
Fr. Healy characterized Malyns psychological incapacity as grave and
incurable.[24]
He
based his opinion on his interview with Tyrone, the trial transcripts, as well
as the report of Dr. Natividad Dayan (Dr. Dayan), Malyns expert witness.[25] He clarified that he did not verify the
truthfulness of the factual allegations regarding Malyns habits because he
believed it is the courts duty to do so.[26] Instead, he formed his opinion on the
assumption that the factual allegations are indeed true.
Malyns version
Malyn denied being psychologically
incapacitated.[27]
While she admitted playing mahjong, she
denied playing as frequently as Tyrone alleged. She maintained that she did so
only two to three times a week and always between 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. only.[28] And in those instances, she always had
Tyrones permission and would often bring the children and their respective yayas with her.[29] She maintained that she did not neglect her
duties as mother and wife.
Malyn
admitted leaving the conjugal home in May 1985.
She, however, explained that she did so only to escape her physically
abusive husband.[30] On the day she left, Tyrone, who preferred to
keep Malyn a housewife, was upset that Malyn was preparing to go to work. He
called up the security guards and instructed them not to let Malyn out of the
house. Tyrone then placed cigarette
ashes on Malyns head and proceeded to lock the bedroom doors. Fearing another beating, Malyn rushed out of their bedroom and into her
mother-in-laws room. She blurted that
Tyrone would beat her up again so her mother-in-law gave her P300 to
leave the house.[31] She never returned to their conjugal home.
Malyn
explained that she applied for work, against Tyrones wishes, because she
wanted to be self-sufficient. Her
resolve came from her discovery that Tyrone had a son by Jocelyn and had
secretly gone to the US with Jocelyn.[32]
Malyn
denied the allegation of adultery. She maintained that Benjie only booked a
room at the Hyatt Hotel for her because she was so drunk after partying with
friends. She admitted finding her
brother Ronald and Tyrone at the door of the Hyatt Hotel room, but maintained
being fully clothed at that time.[33]
Malyn insisted that she wrote the letter relinquishing all her spousal and
parental rights under duress.[34]
After
the Hyatt Hotel incident, Malyn only saw her children by surreptitiously
visiting them in school. She later
obtained partial custody of the children as an incident to the legal separation
action filed by Tyrone against her (which action was subsequently dismissed for
lack of interest).
As an affirmative defense, Malyn
maintained that it was Tyrone who was suffering from psychological incapacity,
as manifested by his drug dependence, habitual drinking, womanizing, and
physical violence.[35] Malyn presented Dr. Dayan a clinical
psychologist, as her expert witness.
Dr.
Dayan interviewed Tyrone, Malyn, Miggy/Mickey, Jay, and Ria for her
psychological evaluation of the spouses. The factual narrations culled from these
interviews reveal that Tyrone found Malyn a lousy mother because of her
mahjong habit,[36] while Malyn was fed up
with Tyrones sexual infidelity, drug habit, and physical abuse.[37] Dr. Dayan determined that both Tyrone and
Malyn were behaviorally immature. They encountered problems because of their
personality differences, which ultimately led to the demise of their
marriage. Her diagnostic impressions are
summarized below:
The marriage of Tyrone and Malyn was a mistake from
the very beginning. Both of them were
not truly ready for marriage even after two years of living together and having
a child. When Malyn first met Tyrone who
showered her with gifts, flowers, and affection she resisted his overtures. She made it clear that she could take him or
leave him. But the minute she started
to care, she became a different person clingy and immature, doubting his
love, constantly demanding reassurance that she was the most important person
in his life. She became relationship-dependent. It appears that her style then was when she
begins to care for a man, she puts all her energy into him and loses focus on
herself. This imbalance between thinking
and feeling was overwhelming to Tyrone who admitted that the thought of
commitment scared him. Tyrone admitted
that when he was in his younger years, he was often out seeking other
women. His interest in them was not
necessarily for sex, just for fun dancing, drinking, or simply flirting.
Both of them seem behaviorally immature. For some time, Malyn adapted to her husband
who was a moody man with short temper and unresolved issues with parents and
siblings. He was a distancer, concerned
more about his work and friends tha[n] he was about spending time with his
family. Because of Malyns and Tyrones
backgrounds (both came from families with high conflicts) they experienced
turmoil and chaos in their marriage. The
conflicts they had struggled to avoid suddenly galloped out of control Their individual personalities broke through,
precipitating the demise of their marriage.[38]
Dr. Dayan likewise wrote in her psychological
evaluation report that Malyn exhibited
significant, but not
severe, dependency, narcissism, and
compulsiveness.[39]
On the
stand, the psychologist elaborated that while Malyn had relationship problems
with Tyrone, she appeared to have a good relationship with her kids.[40] As for Tyrone, he has commitment issues which
prevent him from committing himself to his duties as a husband. He is unable to remain faithful to Malyn and
is psychologically incapacitated to perform this duty.[41]
Childrens version
The
children all stated that both their parents took care of them, provided for
their needs, and loved them. Rio
testified that they would accompany their mother to White Plains on days that
she played mahjong with her friends.
None of them reported being neglected or feeling abandoned.
The
two elder kids remembered the fights between their parents but it was only Ria
who admitted actually witnessing physical abuse inflicted on her mother.[42] The two elder kids also recalled that, after
the separation, their mother would visit them only in school.[43]
The
children recalled living in Valle Verde with only the househelp and driver
during the time that their dad was abroad.[44] While they did not live with their mother
while they were housed in Valle Verde, the kids were in agreement that their
mother took care of them on weekends and would see to their needs. They had a common recollection that the
househelp would call their mother to come and take care of them in Valle Verde
whenever any of them was sick.[45]
Other witnesses
Dr.
Cornelio Banaag, Tyrones attending psychiatrist at the Manila Sanitarium,
testified that, for the duration of Tyrones confinement, the couple appeared
happy and the wife was commendable for the support she gave to her spouse.[46] He likewise testified that Tyrone tested
negative for drugs and was not a drug dependent.[47]
Malyns
brother, Ronald Fernandez, confirmed Tyrones allegation that they found Malyn
with Benjie in the Hyatt hotel room.
Contrary to Tyrones version, he testified that neither he nor Tyrone
entered the room, but stayed in the hallway.
He likewise did not recall seeing Benjie or Malyn half-naked.[48]
Tyrone
then presented Mario Calma (Mario), who was allegedly part of Malyns group of
friends. He stated on the stand that
they would go on nights-out as a group and Malyn would meet with a male
musician-friend afterwards.[49]
Social worker
The
trial court ordered the court social worker, Jocelyn V. Arre (Arre), to conduct
a social case study on the parties as well as the minor children. Arre interviewed the parties Tyrone and
Malyn; the minor children Miggy/Mickey
and Jay; Tyrones live-in partner, Jocelyn;[50]
and Tyrone and Malyns only daughter, Ria.
While both parents are financially stable and have positive
relationships with their children, she recommended that the custody of the
minor children be awarded to Malyn.
Based on the interviews of family members themselves, Malyn was shown to
be more available to the children and to exercise better supervision and
care. The social worker commended the
fact that even after Malyn left the conjugal home in 1985, she made efforts to
visit her children clandestinely in their respective schools. And while she was only granted weekend
custody of the children, it appeared that she made efforts to personally attend
to their needs and to devote time with them.[51]
On the
contrary, Tyrone, who had custody of the children since the couples de facto separation, simply left the
children for several years with only a maid and a driver to care for them while
he lived with his second family abroad.[52] The social worker found that Tyrone tended to
prioritize his second family to the detriment of his children with Malyn. Given this history during the formative years
of the children, the social worker did not find Tyrone a reliable parent to
whom custody of adolescents may be awarded.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court[53]
After
summarizing the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court concluded
that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential
marital obligations under the Family Code.
The courts Decision is encapsulated in this paragraph:
From the evidence, it appears that parties are both
suffering from psychological incapacity to perform their essential marital
obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. The parties entered into a marriage without
as much as understanding what it entails.
They failed to commit themselves to its essential obligations: the conjugal act, the community of life and
love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of their
children to become responsible individuals.
Parties psychological incapacity is grave, and serious such that both
are incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. The incapacity has been clinically
established and was found to be pervasive, grave and incurable.[54]
The trial court then declared the parties marriage
void ab initio pursuant to Article 36
of the Family Code.[55]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals[56]
Malyn
appealed the trial courts Decision to the CA.
The CA reversed the trial courts ruling because it is not supported by
the facts on record. Both parties
allegations and incriminations against each other do not support a finding of
psychological incapacity. The parties
faults tend only to picture their immaturity and irresponsibility in performing
their marital and familial obligations.
At most, there may be sufficient grounds for a legal separation.[57]
Moreover, the psychological report submitted by petitioners expert witness,
Dr. Gates, does not explain how the diagnosis of NPD came to be drawn from the
sources. It failed to satisfy the legal
and jurisprudential requirements for the declaration of nullity of marriage.[58]
Tyrone
filed a motion for reconsideration[59]
but the same was denied on December 15,
2004.[60]
Petitioners arguments
Petitioner
Tyrone argues that the CA erred in disregarding the factual findings of the
trial court, which is the court that is in the best position to appreciate the
evidence. He opines that he has
presented preponderant evidence to prove that respondent is psychologically
incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations, to wit:
a) the expert witnesses, Dr. Gates and Fr.
Healy, proved on the stand that respondents egocentric attitude, immaturity,
self-obsession and self-centeredness were manifestations of respondents NPD;[61]
b) these expert witnesses proved that
respondents NPD is grave and incurable and prevents her from performing her
essential martial obligations;[62]
and
c) that respondents NPD existed at the time of
the celebration of the marriage because it is rooted in her upbringing, family
background, and socialite lifestyle prior to her marriage.[63]
Petitioner stresses that even respondent insisted
that their marriage is void because of psychological incapacity, albeit on
petitioners part.[64]
Respondents arguments
Respondent
maintains that Tyrone failed to discharge his burden of proving her alleged
psychological incapacity.[65] She argues that the testimonies of her
children and the findings of the court social worker to the effect that she was
a good, loving, and attentive mother are sufficient to rebut Tyrones
allegation that she was negligent and irresponsible.[66]
She
assails Dr. Gatess report as one-sided and lacking in depth. Dr. Gates did not
interview her, their common children, or even Jocelyn. Moreover, her report
failed to state that Malyns alleged psychological incapacity was grave and
incurable.[67] Fr. Healys testimony, on the other hand, was
based only on Tyrones version of the facts.[68]
Malyn
reiterates the appellate courts ruling that the trial court Decision is
intrinsically defective for failing to support its conclusion of psychological
incapacity with factual findings.
Almost
four years after filing her memorandum, respondent apparently had a change of
heart and filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Withdraw Comment and
Memorandum.[69] She manifested that she
was no longer disputing the possibility that their marriage may really be void
on the basis of Tyrones psychological incapacity. She then asked the Court to dispose of the
case with justice.[70] Her manifestation and motion were noted by
the Court in its January 20, 2010 Resolution.[71]
Issue
Whether petitioner has sufficiently proved that
respondent suffers from psychological incapacity
Our
Ruling
The
petition has no merit. The CA committed
no reversible error in setting aside the trial courts Decision for lack of
legal and factual basis.
A
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is governed by Article 36 of
the Family Code which provides:
ART.
36. A marriage contracted by any party
who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be
void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
Psychological
incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
assume the basic marital obligations.[72] The
burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff.[73] The plaintiff must prove that the
incapacitated party, based on his or her actions or behavior, suffers a serious
psychological disorder that completely disables him or her from understanding
and discharging the essential obligations of the marital state. The
psychological problem must be grave, must have existed at the time of marriage,
and must be incurable.[74]
In
the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers
from psychological incapacity. He presented the testimonies of two supposed
expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically
incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the
alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently
proven. Petitioners experts heavily
relied on petitioners allegations of respondents constant mahjong sessions,
visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends, adultery, and neglect of
their children. Petitioners experts opined that respondents alleged habits,
when performed constantly to the detriment of quality and quantity of time
devoted to her duties as mother and wife, constitute a psychological incapacity
in the form of NPD.
But petitioners allegations, which served as the
bases or underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts, were not
actually proven. In fact, respondent
presented contrary evidence refuting these allegations of the petitioner.
For
instance, petitioner alleged that respondent constantly played mahjong and
neglected their children as a result.
Respondent admittedly played mahjong, but it was not proven that she
engaged in mahjong so frequently that she neglected her duties as a mother and a wife. Respondent refuted petitioners allegations
that she played four to five times a week.
She maintained it was only two to three times a week and always with the
permission of her husband and without abandoning her children at home. The children corroborated this, saying that
they were with their mother when she played mahjong in their relatives
home. Petitioner did not present any
proof, other than his own testimony, that the mahjong sessions were so frequent
that respondent neglected her family.
While he intimated that two of his sons repeated the second grade, he
was not able to link this episode to respondents mahjong-playing. The least that could have been done was to
prove the frequency of respondents mahjong-playing during the years when these
two children were in second grade. This
was not done. Thus, while there is no
dispute that respondent played mahjong, its alleged debilitating frequency and
adverse effect on the children were not proven.
Also
unproven was petitioners claim about respondents alleged constant visits to
the beauty parlor, going out with friends, and obsessive need for attention
from other men. No proof whatsoever was
presented to prove her visits to beauty salons or her frequent partying with
friends. Petitioner presented Mario (an
alleged companion of respondent during these nights-out) in order to prove that
respondent had affairs with other men, but Mario only testified that respondent
appeared to be dating other men. Even assuming arguendo that petitioner was able to prove that respondent had an
extramarital affair with another man, that one instance of sexual infidelity
cannot, by itself, be equated with obsessive need for attention from other
men. Sexual infidelity per se is a ground for legal separation,
but it does not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity.
Given
the insufficiency of evidence that respondent actually engaged in the behaviors
described as constitutive of NPD, there is no basis for concluding that she was
indeed psychologically incapacitated.
Indeed, the totality of the evidence points to the opposite
conclusion. A fair assessment of the
facts would show that respondent was not totally remiss and incapable of
appreciating and performing her marital and parental duties. Not once did the children state that they
were neglected by their mother. On the
contrary, they narrated that she took care of them, was around when they were
sick, and cooked the food they like. It
appears that respondent made real efforts to see and take care of her children
despite her estrangement from their father.
There was no testimony whatsoever that shows abandonment and neglect of
familial duties. While petitioner cites
the fact that his two sons, Rio and Miggy, both failed the second elementary
level despite having tutors, there is nothing to link their academic
shortcomings to Malyns actions.
After
poring over the records of the case, the Court finds no factual basis for the
conclusion of psychological incapacity. There is no error in the CAs reversal
of the trial courts ruling that there was psychological incapacity. The trial
courts Decision merely summarized the allegations, testimonies, and evidence
of the respective parties, but it did not actually assess the veracity of these
allegations, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of the
evidence. The trial court did not make
factual findings which can serve as bases for its legal conclusion of
psychological incapacity.
What transpired between the parties is acrimony and,
perhaps, infidelity, which may have constrained them from dedicating the best
of themselves to each other and to their children. There may be grounds for
legal separation, but certainly not psychological incapacity that voids a
marriage.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals May 27, 2004 Decision
and its December 15, 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 64240 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
⃰ In lieu of Associate Justice Martin S.
Villarama, Jr., per Special Order No. 1080 dated September 13, 2011.
[1] Rollo, pp. 26-56.
[2]
[3]
[4] CA
Decision, p. 11; rollo, p. 19.
[5] Social
Case Study Report, p. 14; Records, Vol. I, p. 216.
[6] TSN
dated March 15, 1995, pp. 11-12.
[7] Social
Case Study Report, p. 14; Records, Vol. I, p. 216.
[8] Social
Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 13; id. at 213 and 215.
[9] Dr.
Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 7; id. at 259.
[10]
[11] TSN
dated March 15, 1995, pp. 23-24; Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report,
pp. 7-8; Records, Vol. I, p. 259.
[12]
[13] Id. at
2; Petitioners Memorandum in JDRC Case No. 3100, records, Vol. II, pp.
306-307.
[14] The case proceeded to
trial after the fiscal manifested to the court that there was no collusion
between the parties (Records, Vol. I, p. 45).
[15] TSN
dated January 5, 1995, pp. 16-17.
[16]
[17] Psychological
Report, Records, Vol. I, pp. 173-175.
[18] TSN
dated February 15, 1995, pp. 6-7.
[19]
[20] Psychological
Report, Records, Vol. I, pp. 174-175.
[21] TSN
dated February 15, 1995, p. 4.
[22] TSN
dated June 17, 1998, p. 24.
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Records,
Vol. I, pp. 20-21.
[28] TSN
dated July 8, 1998, pp. 5-7.
[29]
[30] TSN
dated March 15, 1995, pp. 12-13.
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] Records,
Vol. I, p. 21.
[36] Dr.
Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 13; id. at 259.
[37]
[38]
[39] TSN dated January 30, 1996, p. 13.
[40]
[41] TSN
dated March 14, 1996, p. 12.
[42] Social
Case Study Report, p. 13 (Records, Vol. I, p. 215); Dr. Dayans Psychological
Evaluation Report, p. 9 (Records, Vol. I, p. 259).
[43] TSN
dated June 8, 1995, p. 6; Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 9 (
[44] Social
Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 13; Records, Vol. I, pp. 213 and 215.
[45] TSN
dated June 8, 1995, p. 9; Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 19 (
[46] TSN
dated November 20, 1995, pp. 15 and 21.
[47]
[48] TSN
dated January 4, 1996, pp. 4-6.
[49] TSN
dated April 2, 1998, pp. 18-20.
[50] Tyrone
alleges that he married Jocelyn Quejano in 1990 in
[51] Social
Case Study Report, pp. 19-20; id. at 221-222.
[52]
[53] Records,
Vol. II, pp. 382-389; penned by Judge Jose R. Hernandez of Branch 158 of the
[54] RTC Decision, pp. 7-8; id. at
388-389.
[55] The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the marriage between petitioner Valerio Kalaw and respondent
Ma. Elena Fernandez celebrated on November 4, 1976 is declared void ab initio
pursuant to the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code, and of no further
effect.
The
provisions of Article[s] 50, 51, and 52 of the Family Code of the Philippines
relative to the delivery of their childrens presumptive legitime shall not
apply because parties were not able to prove the existence of any conjugal
partnership of gains.
Upon
finality of this Decision, furnish a copy each to the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of Pasig City and the National Statistics Office, Quezon City for
their appropriate action consistent with this Decision.
SO ORDERED. (
[56] CA rollo, pp. 262-273.
[57] CA
Decision, p. 7; CA rollo, p. 268.
[58]
[59] CA rollo, pp. 281-298.
[60]
[61] Petitioners
Memorandum, pp. 23-26; rollo, pp.
606-609.
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65] Respondents
Memorandum, p. 2; id. at 551.
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69] Rollo, pp. 650-654.
[70] Respondents
Manifestation, p. 2; id. at 651.
[71] Rollo, p. 662.
[72] Republic v. Iyoy, 507 Phil. 485, 502 (2005), citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 678 (1997).
[73] Republic
v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 676 (1997).
[74]