Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/194958632/G-R-No-Republic-v-CA-159594
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:01:45+00:00

Document:
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
incapacity was not sufficiently established.
Justices Perlita l Tria Tirona (retired) and llakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring.
solemnized by the Municipal Mayor of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
house and lot located in Bacabac, Bugallon, Pangasinan.
collusion between Eduardo and Catalina.
Exhibit “A”, Exhibit Folder, p. 1.
TSN dated December 7, 1998, pp. 4-5.
Exhibit “B”, Exhibit Folder, p. 5).
intended to live there or to receive her share should the residence be sold.
36 of the Family Code, as amended.
TSN dated J anuary 18, 1999, pp. 3-4.
Dr. Reyes was the best evidence of Catalina’s psychological incapacity.
HAVING BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST.
clearly explained by the trial court.
CONTEMPLATED BY ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE.
SHOWN TO BE A SYMPTOM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.
TO BE A SYMPTOM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.
THE INCEPTION OF MARRIAGE, IS GRAVE AND INCURABLE.
CA did not conform to the guidelines laid down by the Court in Republic v.
refusal or neglect to perform her marital obligations.
in exchange for her non-appearance in the trial.
G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198.
bear children of her own.
We grant the petition for review.
Yambao v. Republic, G.R. No. 184063, J anuary 24, 2011, 640 SCRA 355, 367.
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. x x x.
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
symptoms may be physical. x x x.
celebration” of the marriage. x x x.
clinically permanent or incurable. x x x.
outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes. x x x.
G.R. No. 112019, J anuary 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20.
or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. x x x.
the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. x x x.
not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations.
existence of the psychological incapacity.
incapacity that had existed even prior to the celebration of their marriage.
submitted to establish the incapacity.
Republic v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001, 351 SCRA 425, 431.
Bier v. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 123, 132.
Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 353, 376.
upon such a serious matter that was submitted to a court of law.
characterized, mainly by immaturity in several aspects of the personality.
with future relationships, things will not work out.
likely that his or her relationships would also end up as such.
developed through the years and already ingrained within her.
Exhibit Folder, pp. 4, 6.
incurable presence of psychological incapacity.
upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded.
TSN dated J anuary 18, 1999, p. 7.
Marable v. Marable, G.R. No. 178741, J anuary 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 557, 567; Suazo v.Suazo, G.R.
No. 164493, March 12, 2010, 615 SCRA 154, 176.
G.R. No. 176464, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 569.
incapacity to perform her marital duties.
of the evidence presented during trial.
to her youth or immaturity.
Ligeralde v. Patalinghug, G.R. No. 168796, April 15, 2010, 618 SCRA 315, 321-322.
Navarro, G.R. No. 162049, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 121, 130.
Dedel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151867, J anuary 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 461, 466.
Supra note 26, at 174-175.
refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
infidelity bereft of factual and legal basis.
A No, sir. I did not.
Villalon v. Villalon, G.R. No. 167206, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 572, 582.
TSN dated December 14, 1998.
agreement that you have to pay her P50,000.00?
A Regarding our conjugal properties, sir.
the time of your marriage?
Q And why did you agree that you have to give her P50,000.00?
petition for declaration of marriage which you filed against her?
A She does not opposed [sic], sir.
case is the division of your conjugal properties?
Q And you already gave her that amount of P50,000.00, Mr. witness?
the reason why she is no longer around here?
A Yes sir, it could be.
determining the issue of collusion between the spouses.
filed under Article 36 of the Family Code for lack of merit.
Costs to be paid by the respondent.
Alcazar v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 174451, October 13, 2009, 603 SCRA 604, 620.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.