Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Rodriguez, Ritz A. - Nicolas Matudan v. Republic, Et Al., G.R. No. 203284 Nov. 14, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Ritz Avanzado Rodriguez
    The Supreme Court denied Matudan's petition for annulment of his marriage. The Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that Matudan failed to sufficiently prove his wife, Marilyn, was psychologically incapacitated at the time of their marriage. Specifically, the Court found Matudan's evidence based on third-party accounts of Marilyn's behavior were inadmissible hearsay. Additionally, the Court ruled mere neglect of marital duties does not constitute psychological incapacity. As the appellate courts affirmed the trial court's factual findings, the Supreme Court declined to reweigh evidence or resolve other issues raised in the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Rodriguez, Ritz A. - Nicolas Matudan v. Republic, Et Al., G.R. No. 203284 Nov. 14, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Ritz Avanzado Rodriguez
    25 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied Matudan's petition for annulment of his marriage. The Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that Matudan failed to sufficiently prove his wife, Marilyn, was psychologically incapacitated at the time of their marriage. Specifically, the Court found Matudan's evidence based on third-party accounts of Marilyn's behavior were inadmissible hearsay. Additionally, the Court ruled mere neglect of marital duties does not constitute psychological incapacity. As the appellate courts affirmed the trial court's factual findings, the Supreme Court declined to reweigh evidence or resolve other issues raised in the petition.

    Original Title

    Rodriguez, Ritz A._Nicolas Matudan v. Republic , et al., G.R. No. 203284 Nov. 14, 2016

    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 Matudan's petition for annulment of his marriage. The Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that Matudan failed to sufficiently prove his wife, Marilyn, was psychologically incapacitated at the time of their marriage. Specifically, the Court found Matudan's evidence based on third-party accounts of Marilyn's behavior were inadmissible hearsay. Additionally, the Court ruled mere neglect of marital duties does not constitute psychological incapacity. As the appellate courts affirmed the trial court's factual findings, the Supreme Court declined to reweigh evidence or resolve other issues raised in the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views2 pages

    Rodriguez, Ritz A. - Nicolas Matudan v. Republic, Et Al., G.R. No. 203284 Nov. 14, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Ritz Avanzado Rodriguez
    The Supreme Court denied Matudan's petition for annulment of his marriage. The Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that Matudan failed to sufficiently prove his wife, Marilyn, was psychologically incapacitated at the time of their marriage. Specifically, the Court found Matudan's evidence based on third-party accounts of Marilyn's behavior were inadmissible hearsay. Additionally, the Court ruled mere neglect of marital duties does not constitute psychological incapacity. As the appellate courts affirmed the trial court's factual findings, the Supreme Court declined to reweigh evidence or resolve other issues raised in the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MATUDAN v. REPUBLIC, 2016.

    FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    Art. 36 of the Family Code states:
    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.

    Article 68 of the same Code provides:


    'The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
    render mutual help and support.'

    MATUDAN v. REPUBLIC, 2016


    Facts:
    >> Matudan filed a petition for review on certiorari on the decision and resolution of the CA
    denying the petition of the CA and motion for reconsideration ; thus, affirming the decision of
    the RTC of Quezon City Branch 94 which dismissed the petition for annulment of marriage.
    >> Private respondent Marilyn, after cohabitating with the petitioner Matudan for six (6) years
    left for abroad to work, however, she has never been heard and whereabouts were not disclosed
    to her family. She was not able to give love, care and support to her husband and kids.
    >> It has been determined that the petitioner’s evidence to sufficiently prove that Marilyn was
    psychologically unfit for marriage failed, and dismissal is deemed appropriate ruling of both the
    trial and appellate courts. Petitioner could not establish its gravity, juridical antecedence, and
    incurability.
    Issue: 
    >> Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in the given case calling for annulment.
    Ruling:
    >> Making hasty generalization based from a third-party narrative, is no different from admitting
    hearsay evidence as proof of truthfulness of content of such evidence, thus, any information on
    Marilyn’s psychological incapacity, based from the testimony of the petitioner can not be used as
    proof.
    >> Mere neglect or inability to function and give the proper care, love and support from a mother
    to her children as well to her husband, is not a manifestation of psychological incapacity.
    >> In the instant case, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to review. The task to
    analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual
    determination is not of the Courts responsibility. It is of standard that factual findings of the trial
    court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court, thus, there is no need
    to resolve the other issues raised.
    >> Thus, the petition is DENIED and the CA’s decision are AFFIRMED.

    You might also like