Case Name
DANILO A. AURELIO,
Petitioner, vs.
VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO,
Respondent.
Topic
V. Void Marriages
–
Procedure in actions for declaration of nullity
–
No Motion To Dismiss
Case No. | Date
G.R. No. 175367 | June 6, 2011
Ponente
J
. Peralta
Digest
Author
Jude Fanila
Summary
Petition is a petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA which affirmed the
RTC’s
grant of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the FC. Flow is : Petitioner (Husband) lost in RTC, where wife (respondent) filed nullity of marriage for psych incapacity. Husband appealed RTC, RTC dismissed, CA affirmed RTC, SC affirmed CA.
Doctrines involved
Motion to Dismiss
Application of Doctrines (re: Outline/topic placement)
Denial of motion to dismiss is not reviewable by certiorari, proper remedy is to proceed to trial then appeal that decision if petitioner lost.
RELEVANT FACTS
1.
On May 9, 2002 respondent (Wife) filed with the RTC of Quezon city a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the FC. She alleged that both she and petitioner were psychologically incapacitated and that aforementioned incapacitation was present prior and even during the time of the marriage ceremony. a.
Psych Incapacity for Husband
–
lack of financial support, lack of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his working wife.
“The
husband exhibited consistent jealousy and distrust towards his wife. His moods alternated between hostile defiance and contrition. He refused to assist in the maintenance of the family. He refused to foot the household bills and provide for his
family’s
needs. He exhibited arrogance. He was completely insensitive to the feelings of his wife. He liked to humiliate and embarrass his wife even in the presence of their
children.”
b.
Psych Incapacity for Wife
–
“is
effusive and displays her feelings openly and freely. Her feelings change very quickly
–
from joy to fury to misery to despair, depending on her day-to-day experiences. Her tolerance for boredom was very low. She was emotionally immature; she cannot stand frustration or disappointment. She cannot delay to gratify her
needs. She gets upset when she cannot get what she wants. Self-indulgence lifts her spirits
immensely. Their hostility towards each other distorted their relatio
nship.”
2.
Both parties were evaluated by a psychologist who found incapacity. Diagnosed
Wife
with Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features;
Husband
diagnosed with passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder that render him immature and irresponsible to assume the normal obligations of a marriage. 3.
Petitioner (Husband) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. 4.
RTC denied motion to dismiss, he filed a motion for reconsideration but was also denied by the RTC then ruled in favor of the wife, declaring their marriage void on grounds of psychological incapacity on December 17, 2003. 5.
Petitioner then appealed to the CA on February 2004, however CA dismissed appeal on October 6, 2005. Affirming the decision of the RTC. 6.
Leading to current petition.
Petition for Certiorari
Seeking to set aside the October 6, 2005 and October 26, 2006 decisions of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner avers that:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATED THE APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT HELD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THE COURT TO DECLARE THE NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN VIDA AND DANILO. II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATED THE APPLICABLE LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S ACTION FOR CERTIORARI DESPITE
THE FACT THAT THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS PATENTLY AND UTTERLY TAINTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION; AND THAT APPEAL IN DUE COURSE IS NOT A PLAIN, ADEQUATE OR SPEEDY REMEDY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
RATIO DECIDENDI Issue
Ratio
W/N the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
NO.
No showing that there was a grave abuse of discretion which the SC puts to mean as
“capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction”
. Mere abuse
petitioner’s
motion
to dismiss?
Thus, the CA did not err in dismissing the petition. The
denial of a motion dismiss is not reviewable by certiorari
as it is an interlocury order.
o
His remedy was to reiterate the grounds in his motion to dismiss as defenses in his answer to the petition for nullity and proceed to trial. If trial fails, then he appeals the trial. Thus, there is adequate remedy which removes underpinnings for petition for certiorari. W/N the granting of nullity of marriage was correct?
YES
Wife, in her petition sufficiently complied with the Molina doctrine.
o
That the illness was of such a grave nature as to bring about disability to fail to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage under Art. 68 to 71 of the FC.
o
That the root cause predated the marriage as identified by the diagnosis of the Psychologist.
She also sufficiently stated the cause of action in her initial complaint by stating root cause of psychological incapacity in the complaint.
RULING WHEREFORE
, premises considered the petition is
DENIED
. The October 6, 2005 Decision and October 26, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 82238, are
AFFIRMED
.
SO ORDERED.
NOTES
Family Code 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. Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. (109a) Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (110a) Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income or fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate properties. (111a)
Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and the duty of both spouses. The expenses for such management shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 70. (115a)