Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 522 views

    Gr. 130087 Barcelona Vs CA & Bengzon Cause of Action Forum Shopping

    Uploaded by

    Michael Jones
    1) Tadeo Bengzon filed two petitions to annul his marriage to Diana Barcelona - the first was withdrawn and the second alleged psychological incapacity. 2) Diana filed a motion to dismiss the second petition arguing there was no cause of action and it violated rules against forum shopping. 3) The courts ruled that while expert opinion on the root cause of psychological incapacity is not required, the petition sufficiently stated a cause of action. They also found that the dismissal of the first petition did not constitute res judicata or litis pendentia, so the second petition did not violate rules on forum shopping.

    Copyright:

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

    Gr. 130087 Barcelona Vs CA & Bengzon Cause of Action Forum Shopping

    Uploaded by

    Michael Jones
    522 views1 page
    1) Tadeo Bengzon filed two petitions to annul his marriage to Diana Barcelona - the first was withdrawn and the second alleged psychological incapacity. 2) Diana filed a motion to dismiss the second petition arguing there was no cause of action and it violated rules against forum shopping. 3) The courts ruled that while expert opinion on the root cause of psychological incapacity is not required, the petition sufficiently stated a cause of action. They also found that the dismissal of the first petition did not constitute res judicata or litis pendentia, so the second petition did not violate rules on forum shopping.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Gr. 130087 Barcelona vs CA & Bengzon Cause of Action Forum Shopping

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Tadeo Bengzon filed two petitions to annul his marriage to Diana Barcelona - the first was withdrawn and the second alleged psychological incapacity. 2) Diana filed a motion to dismiss the second petition arguing there was no cause of action and it violated rules against forum shopping. 3) The courts ruled that while expert opinion on the root cause of psychological incapacity is not required, the petition sufficiently stated a cause of action. They also found that the dismissal of the first petition did not constitute res judicata or litis pendentia, so the second petition did not violate rules on forum shopping.

    Copyright:

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

    Gr. 130087 Barcelona Vs CA & Bengzon Cause of Action Forum Shopping

    Uploaded by

    Michael Jones
    1) Tadeo Bengzon filed two petitions to annul his marriage to Diana Barcelona - the first was withdrawn and the second alleged psychological incapacity. 2) Diana filed a motion to dismiss the second petition arguing there was no cause of action and it violated rules against forum shopping. 3) The courts ruled that while expert opinion on the root cause of psychological incapacity is not required, the petition sufficiently stated a cause of action. They also found that the dismissal of the first petition did not constitute res judicata or litis pendentia, so the second petition did not violate rules on forum shopping.

    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

    G.R. No.

    130087 September 24, 2003


    Diana M. Barcelona Vs. CA and Tadeo R. Bengzon

    Facts: Petioner Diana Barcelona and respondent Tadeo Bengzon contracted marriage after their whirlwind
    courtship. The union begot five children.
    On March 29, 1995, private respondent Tadeo Bengzon filed a petition for annulment of marriage on ground
    of psychological incapacity against petitioner Diana Barcelona. On May 9, 1995, respondent filed a Motion to
    withdraw which the RTC granted on June 7, 1995.
    On July 21, 1995, respondent filed a new petition for annulment of marriage on ground of psychological
    incapacity against petitioner Diana Barcelona. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds (1) there
    was no cause of action in the second petition (2) it violates SC Administrative Circular on forum shopping.
    RTC issued an order to defer resolution on the motion of petitioner until arguments in the hearing. Petitioner
    then filed a motion for reconsideration.
    Petitioner Diana filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus before the Court of Appeals
    assailing the trial courts first order deferring action on the Motion and the second order denying the motion
    for reconsideration on 14 February 1997. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and denied the motion
    for reconsideration.
    Hence, this petition.
    Issue: Whether the allegations of the second petition for annulment of marriage sufficiently state a cause of
    action and whether respondent Tadeo violated SC Administrative circular on forum shopping.
    Ruling: Petitioner contends that the petition fails to allege the root cause of the psychological incapacity.
    Subsequent to Santos and Molina, the Court adopted the new Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
    Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages: The complete facts should allege the physical
    manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the
    marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.
    Since the new Rules do not require the petition to allege expert opinion on the psychological incapacity, it
    follows that there is also no need to allege in the petition the root cause of the psychological incapacity since
    root cause can only be ascertain by experts.
    On whether respondent Tadeo violated SC Administrative circular on forum shopping, as the court have ruled
    that an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would not constitute res
    judicata and litis pendentia as in the case at bar, is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullification of the
    entire proceedings considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the said certificate are not present.
    The dismissal of the first petition precluded the eventuality of litis pendentia. The first petitions dismissal
    did not also amount to res judicata. Thus, there is no need to state in the certificate of non-forum shopping
    in the second petition about the prior filing and dismissal of the first petition.
    Hence, second petition is not subject to attack by a motion to dismiss on the grounds cited by the petitioner.
    Petition is denied and decision of RTC and CA were affirmed.

    You might also like