THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 248675. July 20, 2022 ]

CLAUDINE MONETTE BALDOVINO-TORRES, PETITIONER, VS.
JASPER A. TORRES, RESPONDENT.
DECISION

INTING, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the Decision[2] dated March 22, 2019 and the Resolution[3] dated July 9,
2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 109403. The assailed Decision
reversed and set aside the Decision[4] dated January 30, 2017 of Branch 199, Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Las Piñas City in SP No. 15-0096 that declared the marriage contracted by
Claudine Monette Baldovino-Torres (Claudine) and Jasper Torres (Jasper) as null and void ab
initio due to psychological incapacity. The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied
Claudine's Motion for Reconsideration[5] for lack of merit.

The Antecedents

Claudine and Jasper met in the year 2000 through text messaging. They learned that they had
common friends and had met before at a party. Eventually, they were drawn to each other and
started to go on dates. After a few months, they got romantically involved until Claudine
became pregnant with their child, Justin Clyde Baldovino Torres (Justin).[6]

Despite the initial objection from Claudine's mother, the couple got married on July 10, 2002
before Judge Encarnacion Jaja Moya­Balbastro of Branch 62, RTC, Makati City. Thereafter,
they lived with Jasper's family at San Pedro, Laguna.[7]

Early on in their married life, Claudine began to notice Jasper's strong attachment with his
friends as he would often go out with them until the wee hours of the morning. Jobless, he
would always wake up around noontime and rely solely on the support of his parents who
owned a sari-sari store.[8]

On December 5, 2002, Claudine decided to go back to school after the birth of their son,
Justin. She took up Mass Communications at St. Scholastica's College where she graduated
with distinction. On the other hand, Jasper finished a certification course in culinary arts. He
got a job as a cook in Boracay, but he quit his job only after two weeks. Subsequently, he was
able to get a two-year contract to work in Dubai; he also quit his job after only three months.
[9]

Jasper continued to live a carefree life. His drinking habits worsened: when drunk, he would
force Claudine to have sex that the latter felt like being raped. He had likewise become
increasingly aggressive towards Claudine. In the meantime, both continued to depend on
Jasper's parents because he refused to work elsewhere; he reasoned that his parents would not
let them go hungry.[10] Eventually, Claudine decided to leave him. She left their son with
Jasper's parents to work in Manila. Later on, she went to Singapore. Her efforts to reconcile
with Jasper proved to be futile as she later learned that Jasper had a child with another
woman.[11]

The antecedents prompted Claudine to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code[12] against Jasper before the RTC.

In addition to Claudine's testimony in court, the following also testified: Nora Ng Baldovino
(Nora), Claudine's mother; and Clinical Psychologist Nedy Tayag (Dr. Tayag).

Nora testified that she was displeased when her daughter married Jasper because both of
them were still studying during that time. She also described Jasper as irresponsible, both as
a husband and father, as he depended too much on his parents.[13]

On the other hand, Dr. Tayag testified that she was able to conduct a series of psychological
evaluations on both Claudine and Jasper and that based on her observations and the results of
the tests which she administered on them, she found Jasper to be suffering from Antisocial
Personality Disorder. Dr. Tayag described the disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for
and violation of the rights of others as shown by impulsivity, irresponsible attitude, and lack
of regard for others.[14]

Moreover, Dr. Tayag stated that Jasper was short-sighted, incautious, and imprudent; that he
failed to plan for himself and his family and did not consider alternatives or heed
consequences; and that Jasper was untrustworthy and unreliable as he failed to meet personal
obligations of a marital, parental, occupational, or financial nature.[15]

Dr. Tayag further averred that, in her opinion, Jasper's condition has been ingrained in his
core personality since childhood. He developed his antisocial, unruly, and carefree ways
because of parental attachment and the kind of home environment in which he grew up.[16]
Jasper's mother smothered him with affection and she would get furious at his father for
scolding Jasper. This arrangement had amplified Jasper's feelings of entitlement and
importance as he has always felt that he had the support of his mother no matter what he
does.[17] In addition, because his father was often away to manage their store in Makati City,
there was no one to balance his mother's leniency. Thus, Jasper went on to live his life in a
manner that is pleasure-seeking, disregarding the rules and norms of the society for the sake
of the fulfillment of his desires and other caprices.[18]

In sum, Dr. Tayag maintained that Jasper's psychological incapacity is grave, serious,
chronic, severe, and incurable by any form of treatment. She recommended that the marriage
between Jasper and Claudine be declared null and void as it was doomed from the start.[19]

Ruling of the RTC

On January 30, 2017, the RTC rendered a Decision[20] declaring the marriage of Jasper and
Claudine as null and void ab initio. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

 (1) Declaring the marriage contracted by the petitioner CLAUDINE
MONETTE BALDOVINO-TORRES and respondent JASPER A.
TORRES solemnized on July 10, 2002 at Branch 62, Metropolitan
Trial Court of Makati City and all its effects under the law NULL
AND VOID AB INITIO conformably with Article 36 of the Family
Code as annulled;

(2) Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property between

the parties;

(3) Pursuant to the provisions of A.M. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on

Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages):

(a) Directing the Branch Clerk of Court to enter this

judgment, upon its finality in the Book of Entry of
Judgment and to issue an Entry of Judgment in accordance
thereto; and

(b) Directing the Civil Registrars of Makati City and Las

Piñas City to cause the registration of the entry of
judgment in their respective book of marriages.

Upon compliance, a Decree of Nullity of Marriage shall be issued.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the parties and their counsel at their last
known addresses, the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the City
Prosecutor for their information.

SO ORDERED.[21]

In granting the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code, the RTC gave credence to the psychiatric report and testimony of the expert witness,
Dr. Tayag, as follows: Jasper was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital
obligations; his psychological incapacity was characterized as grave, severe, and incurable by
any clinical intervention;[22] he had neither the mind, the will, nor the heart to perform the
obligations of marriage; while he lived together with Claudine, there was no conjugal effort
to keep and support his family in that he had no initiative to work and support his wife in
rearing their child;[23] the possibility of reconciliation between them was already beyond
reach because his condition was irredeemable and chronic, having been developed early in
his life and long before he met Claudine.[24]

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic of the Philippines, filed
a Motion for Reconsideration[25] and sought the reversal of the RTC Decision dated January
30, 2017. However, the RTC denied it in an Order dated May 29, 2017.[26]

Ruling of the CA

On appeal, the CA reversed the ruling of the RTC in the assailed Decision[27] dated March
22, 2019. The CA ruled that the totality of evidence failed to establish that the gravity of
Jasper's disorder could be categorized under Article 36 of the Family Code.[28] It held that
the acts of Jasper are not demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance in their marriage.[29] It found the acts of Jasper to be manifestations of his
refusal to perform his marital obligation to help and support Claudine in attaining the
financial security that she had envisioned for their family, and while Jasper did not aspire for
more in life, he was also neither unaware of nor indifferent to his marital obligations.[30]

The CA explained that upon review of the report of Dr. Tayag, the problem in the marriage of
Jasper and Claudine lies on their opposing views on how to raise a family that is not a
manifestation of psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage.
As to Jasper's alleged penchant for drinking, sexual aggression, and extra-marital affair, the
CA stressed that sexual infidelity or perversion, habitual drunkenness, and failure to find a
job do not, by themselves, warrant a finding of psychological incapacity.[31]

Undaunted, Claudine moved for a reconsideration of the assailed Decision, but the CA
denied it for lack of merit in its subsequent Resolution[32] dated July 9, 2019.

Hence, the instant petition.

Issues

The issues to be resolved in the case are (1) whether the CA erred in not giving credence to
the expert testimony of the clinical psychologist; (2) whether the CA erred in ruling that the
totality of evidence does not show that the disorder of Jasper is that which is contemplated by
Article 36 of the Family Code; and (3) whether the CA erred when it did not dismiss the
appeal outright as the RTC Decision had already become final and executory.[33]

In her petition, Claudine avers that the totality of evidence presented in the RTC proves that
Jasper is afflicted with psychological incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence, and incurability, which renders him incapable of complying with his essential
marital obligations. Moreover, she assails, as being "whimsical and baseless," the CA's
disregard of the testimony of an expert witness.[34] She stresses that while the presentation of
any form of medical or psychological examination in evidence does not equate to an
automatic grant of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, its presentation must not
be discounted outright.[35] Further, she maintains that the testimonies of her witnesses,
viewed in relation with the exhaustive testimony of Dr. Tayag, establish the link between the
acts which manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

As to the issue that the appeal before the CA should have been dismissed outright, Claudine
submits that the decision of the RTC had already become final and executory in view of the
failure of the OSG to timely file its motion for reconsideration before the RTC. According to
Claudine, the public prosecutor in charge of the case received a copy of the RTC Decision on
March 20, 2017. Consequently, the OSG had 15 days or until April 4, 2017 to move for
reconsideration of the decision. However, the Motion for Reconsideration[36] was dated April
17, 2017 which shows that it was filed out of time. Hence, Claudine argues that the RTC
Decision had already become final and executory and it can no longer be reviewed by way of
appeal.[37]

For its part, the OSG counters that: the totality of evidence failed to prove the presence of the
elements of gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability, required by jurisprudence;[38] the
RTC relied heavily on the clinical psychologist's report when it granted the petition and failed
to consider the totality of evidence presented by Claudine;[39] and assuming arguendo that
the Report[40] of Dr. Tayag is thorough, it should be regarded merely as recommendatory and
not conclusive in line with the rule that the court is not bound by the opinion of an expert and
that any expert opinion is to be considered or weighed like any other testimony.[41]

As to the contention that the RTC Decision had already attained finality and can no longer be
appealed, the OSG posits that the reckoning date when the Republic is deemed to have been
given notice of the decision subject of the motion for reconsideration depends not on the date
of receipt by the deputized prosecutor but on the date of receipt by the OSG.[42] Having
received a copy of the RTC Decision on April 4, 2017, the OSG maintains that its filing of a
motion for reconsideration on April 18, 2017 was well within the 15-day reglementary period
in filing an appeal.

The Courts Ruling

The Court grants the petition.

 
On the procedural
issue that the
Motion for
 
Reconsideration
was filed out of
time in the RTC.

The Court finds no merit in the contention that the OSG filed its Motion for Reconsideration
out of time in the RTC. Admittedly, the public prosecutor in charge of the case, who was
deputized by the OSG to appear on its behalf, received a copy of the RTC Decision on March
20, 2017.[43] On the other hand, the OSG received its copy only on April 4, 2017.[44]

In the case of National Power Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[45]

(NAPOCOR), the Court held that the proper basis for computing the reglementary period to
file an appeal and in determining whether a decision had attained finality is service on the
OSG. In holding so, the Court emphasized that the lawyer deputized by the OSG is
considered as a mere representative of the latter who retains supervision and control over the
deputized lawyer. As a consequence, copies of orders and decisions served on the deputized
counsel, acting as agent or representative of the Solicitor General, are not binding until they
are actually received by the latter.[46]

The NAPOCOR case was cited in the subsequent case of Commissioner of Customs v. Court
of Tax Appeals,[47] where it was reiterated that although the OSG may have deputized the
lawyers in a government agency represented by it, the OSG continues to be the principal
counsel and, therefore, service on it of legal processes, and not that on the deputized lawyers,
is decisive.[48]

In the same vein, the period to file a motion for reconsideration in the present case should be
counted from the receipt by the OSG of a copy of the RTC Decision on April 4, 2017.[49]
Consequently, the filing by the OSG of its Motion for Reconsideration questioning the RTC
Decision on April 18, 2017 was well within the reglementary period for filing such motion.
The counting of the period for its filing should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the
assailed decision by the OSG and not by the public prosecutor. This is because the public
prosecutor acted as a mere representative of the OSG which, in turn, retained supervision and
control over the former.
 
The totality of
evidence
sufficiently proves
the psychological
 
incapacity of
Jasper to comply
with his marital
obligations.

The petition is anchored on Article 36 of the Family Code which declares psychological
incapacity as a ground to nullify a marriage as follows:

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.

As a ground for nullity of marriage, psychological incapacity should be confined to the most
serious cases of personality disorders that clearly manifest utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage. The party must be truly incognitive of his or
her basic marital covenants which, among others, include the mutual obligation of the
husband and wife to live together; observe love, respect, and fidelity; and render help and
support.[50] In other words, psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (a) gravity in
that it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a marriage; (b) juridical antecedence in that it is rooted in the
history of the party antedating the marriage; and (c) incurability.[51]

Corollary thereto is the case of Marcos v. Marcos[52] where the Court ruled that
psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage may be
established by the totality of evidence presented.[53] It reiterated that the alleged
psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability.[54] The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the
history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge
only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved.[55]

Also, there is no requirement, however, that the respondent should be examined by a

physician or a psychologist as a condition for such declaration.[56]

Highlighting that the psychological incapacity need not be proven by an expert, the Court, in
the more recent case of Tan-Andal v. Andal[57] (Andal), clarified that psychological
incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven
through an expert opinion. So long as there is proof that the spouse's personality structure
makes it impossible for him or her to comply with his or her marital obligations, ordinary
witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before their marriage may testify
on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the incapacitated spouse. As
explained in the case:

In light of the foregoing, this Court now categorically abandons the second
Molina guideline. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a
personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There must be
proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called
"personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of
dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure
must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to
comply with his or her essential marital obligations.

Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary

witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter
contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed
from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if
these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the
essential marital obligations.

In this way, the Code Committee's intent to limit the incapacity to "psychic
causes" is fulfilled. Furthermore, there will be no need to label a person as having
a mental disorder just to obtain a decree of nullity. A psychologically
incapacitated person need not be shamed and pathologized for what could have
been a simple mistake in one's choice of intimate partner, a mistake too easy to
make as when one sees through rose-colored glasses. A person's psychological
incapacity to fulfill his or her marital obligations should not be at the expense of
one's dignity, because it could very well be that he or she did not know that the
incapacity existed in the first place.[58]

In Andal, the Court found therein respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to comply

with his essential marital obligations. The petitioner in Andal was able to prove such
incapacity by clear and convincing evidence which mainly consisted of the testimony on
respondent's personality structure and how it was formed primarily through his childhood
and adult experiences before his marriage to therein petitioner.[59] The Court likewise gave
weight to the expert opinion of the psychiatrist who was presented as a witness during the
trial even though the respondent therein, who was later on found to be psychologically
incapacitated, did not appear for psychiatric evaluation. In giving credence to the expert
opinion of the psychiatrist, the Court stated that personal examination of the alleged
psychologically incapacitated spouse is not required. A decree of nullity of marriage may still
be issued so long as the totality of evidence sufficiently proves the psychological incapacity
of one or both of the spouses. Thus:

On the principles and methodology Dr. Garcia applied in evaluating Rosanna and
Mario, she conducted a psychiatric clinical interview and mental status
examination of Rosanna. She likewise interviewed Ma. Samantha and Jocelyn
Genevieve, Rosanna's sister. The psychiatric clinical interview and mental status
examination remain to be the principal techniques in diagnosing psychiatric
disorders. While ideally, the person to be diagnosed should be personally
interviewed, it is accepted practice in psychiatry to base a person's psychiatric
history on collateral information, or information from sources aside from the
 person evaluated. This is usually done if the patient is not available, incapable, or
otherwise refuses to cooperate, as in this case.

In any case, it cannot be said that the psychiatric evaluation of Mario was
exclusively based on collateral information. Dr. Garcia likewise based her
diagnosis on a personal history handwritten by Mario himself while staying at
Seagulls, an "independent evidence."

At any rate, this Court said in Marcos that personal examination of the allegedly
psychologically incapacitated spouse is "not [required] for a declaration of
[nullity of marriage due to] psychological incapacity." So long as the totality of
evidence, as in this case, sufficiently proves the psychological incapacity of one
or both of the spouses, a decree of nullity of marriage may be issued.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to Dr. Garcia's
expert opinion just because Mario did not appear for psychiatric evaluation.[60]
(Citations omitted)

Applying the ruling in Andal in the case, the Court finds that the totality of evidence
presented in the RTC sufficiently proves that Jasper is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with his essential marital obligations.
 
The psychological
incapacity of
Jasper was grave,
 
incurable, and
with juridical
antecedence.

The three witnesses presented in the RTC testified as regards the psychological incapacity of
Jasper which can be characterized as grave. Claudine categorically stated that early on in
their married life, she began to notice her husband's attachment with his friends as he would
often go out with them until the wee hours of the morning. Despite being a married man,
with Claudine pregnant, Jasper was jobless and would wake up around noontime. They relied
solely on the support of Jasper's parents who had a sari-sari store.[61] Claudine thought that
fatherhood might change her husband's attitude. However, while Jasper was able to finish a
certification course in culinary arts, he suddenly lost interest in working; he instead processed
his papers to become a seaman. Later on, he was hired as a cook in Boracay, but he quit his
job after only two weeks. When he was able to secure a two-year contract in Dubai, he also
quit his job after only three months. Jasper then continued to live a carefree life. His drinking
habits worsened and, when drunk, he would force Claudine to have sex with him that she felt
like she was being raped.[62]

Because of the foregoing, Claudine decided to leave Jasper to work in Manila and, later on,
in Singapore. Jasper tried to reconcile with her, but he did not change his ways. Thereafter,
Claudine learned that Jasper had a child with another woman.[63]

Nora, the mother of Claudine, also testified that she was displeased when her daughter
married Jasper because both of them were still studying at that time. She described Jasper as
an irresponsible husband and father who depended much on his parents.[64]
Dr. Tayag, the clinical psychologist who was presented as an expert witness, stated that she
was able to conduct a series of psychological evaluations of both Claudine and Jasper.
According to her, Jasper was suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is
characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, as
shown by impulsivity, irresponsible attitude, and lack of regard for others.[65] Per the
Report[66] of Dr. Tayag, this disorder was seen in the following: (a) he is short-sighted,
incautious, imprudent, and does not plan ahead, consider alternatives, or heed consequences;
(b) he is untrustworthy and unreliable, and either fails to meet or intentionally neglects his
personal obligations of a marital, parental, occupational or financial nature; (c) he is
disdainful of traditional ideas, fails to conform to social norms, and is contemptuous of
conventional values; and (d) he is insensitive; irritable, and aggressive, as expressed in wide-
ranging deficit in social charitableness, compassion, and remorse.[67]

Further, the Report explained that the dependent attitude of Jasper was seen to be an
extension of his antisocial ways, which constitute the core trait of his personality. He
developed his unruly and carefree ways due to parental attachment and the kind of home
environment in which he grew up. His feelings of entitlement and importance were amplified
because his mother smothered him when he was growing up and he knew that he had her
support no matter what he does.[68] Having no one to reprimand him enough, he remained
immature and carefree. He pursued that which he saw to be pleasurable regardless of the
consequences of his actions.[69]

Lastly, Dr. Tayag described Jasper's condition to be grave, severe, and incurable by any
clinical intervention. She likewise found Jasper's state as characterized by juridical
antecedence because it developed early in life long before he met Claudine. She surmised
that the possibility of reconciliation between the couple is already beyond reach because
Jasper would not change his ways, and the feelings of love, trust, and respect were all gone.
[70]

It bears to emphasize that in making her findings, Dr. Tayag interviewed and personally
examined both Jasper and Claudine with a corroborative interview of Jasper's father,
Domingo Torres (Domingo). Domingo described his son as unruly and as someone who
prioritized his friends over his family. Domingo narrated that when Jasper was still in high
school, he and his wife, were often called by his teacher due to Jasper's drinking and smoking
in school. Jasper had likewise transferred to several schools due to his misdemeanors.[71]
Domingo admitted that his son is irresponsible and, whenever he would scold Jasper, his wife
(Jasper's mother) would also get mad at him.

While expert opinion is not required in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage, the Court
nonetheless finds that it should be given weight and taken into consideration in the resolution
of this case. Dr.Tayag amplified the reasons why the personality disorder of Jasper is
considered grave, deeply-rooted in his childhood, and incurable.

At this point, the Court agrees with the RTC when it ruled that Jasper did not have the mind,
the will, nor the heart to perform the essential obligations of marriage.[72] As it aptly ruled:

x x x He lived together with the petitioner but there was no conjugal effort to keep
and support the family. He has no initiative to work and support his wife in
rearing their child. As the husband, he should be the pillar of the family. He
should be there for his family not only physically but also emotionally and
 financially. That is not the case with the respondent. He failed to perform his
marital obligations because he is suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder.
[73]

The psychological incapacity of Jasper is characterized as follows: (1) grave and serious
such that he is incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; (2) with
juridical antecedence as shown by the parental attachment in the home environment in which
he grew up; and (3) incurable by any clinical intervention. These characteristics were proven
by the totality of evidence that consisted of the testimonies of both ordinary and expert
witnesses.

All told, the Court finds that Claudine was able to prove with clear and convincing evidence
that Jasper was psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations.
This renders their marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 22, 2019 and the
Resolution dated July 9, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 109403 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated January 30, 2017 of Branch 199,
Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City in SP No. 15-0096 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Caguioa, (Chairperson), Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concur.

[1] Rollo, pp. 3-30.

[2]Id. at 32-38; penned by Associate Justice Germano Franciso D. Legaspi and concurred in
by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon.

[3] Id. at 40-41.

[4] Id. at 99-112; penned by Presiding Judge Joselito dj. Vibandor.

[5] Id. at 40.

[6] Id. at 100-101.

[7] Id. at 101.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 101-102.

[12] Id. at 99.

[13] Id. at 102.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. at 103.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id. at 99-112.

[21] Id. at 112.

[22] Id. at 110.

[23] Id. at 111.

[24] Id. at 110.

[25] Id. at 91-98.

[26] Id. at 32.

[27] Id. at 32-38.

[28] Id. at 36.

[29] Id.

[30] Id.

[31] Id. at 37.

[32] Id. at 40-41.

[33] Id. at 14.

[34] Id. at 14-15.

[35] Id. at 20.

[36] Id. at 91-98.

[37] Id. at 25-26.

[38] Id. at 167.

[39] Id.

[40] Id. at 68-90.

[41] Id. at 173-174.

[42] Id. at 174.

[43] Id. at 25.

[44] Id. at 176.

[45] 339 Phil. 89 (1997).

[46] Id. at 101-102.

[47] 385 Phil. 569 (2000).

[48] Id. at 577-578.

[49] Rollo, p. 186.

[50] Cahapisan-Santiago v. Santiago, G.R. No. 241144, June 26, 2019. Citations omitted.

[51] Id.

[52] 397 Phil. 840 (2000).

[53] Id. at 842.

[54] Id.

[55] Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 39 (1995).

[56] Id.

[57] G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021.

[58] Id.

[59] Id.

[60] Id.

[61] Rollo, p. 101.

[62] Id.

[63] Id. at 101-102.

[64] Id. at 102.

[65] Id.

[66] Id. at 68-90.

[67] Id. at 85-87.

[68] Id. at 88.

[69] Id. at 89.

[70] Id. at 89-90.

[71] Id. at 79.

[72] Id. at 111.

[73] Id.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: March 13, 2023

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System