October 2024

Doctrine: Unjustified Absence from Marital Home Considered Psychological Incapacity Facts:  Leonora and Alfredo married on June 9, 1984. Their married life started smoothly, but Alfredo’s behavior later on changed. He would come home late or early morning after a night out with friends. He neglected his duty and did not provide food for the family. He treated Leonora as an ordinary occupant of the house, not as his wife. Alfredo also engaged in illicit affairs.  In 1994, they separated. The same year, Alfredo married another woman. Then in 2000, he married another one. Alfredo abandoned his family with Leonora and did not provide any financial support.  restoslot4d amintoto amintoto Leonora then filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. Dr. Ison, a clinical psychologist, found Alfredo to be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder with underlying borderline personality traits.  Issue: Whether or not Alfredo can be considered as psychologically incapacitated? Ruling:  Yes. After leaving his family in 1994 and contracting marriage with different women, Alfredo never gave financial support to his children and only visited them once for less than an hour. These indicate that he did not understand his obligations as a husband and father. Article 68 of the Civil Code provides: The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. Through Dr. Isons’s testimony who was presented as an expert witness, Leonora was able to prove that her husband Alfred’s psychological disorder is grave, incurable  and permanent. Dr. Ison explained how Alfredo’s personality disorder developed from his childhood and how it is collated to his inability to fulfill his obligations as a husband and father.  The gravity of his personality disorder is shown by his lack of recognition that he has responsibilities to his wife and children. The incurability of his disorder was also explained when Dr. Ison stated in his Judicial Affidavit that those diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder “strongly deny that they are mentally ill, reject the idea of seeking professional help and therefore refuse any form of psychiatric treatment.” Alfredo’s infidelity, failure to give support to his wife and children, and unjustified absence from his family are all indicative that he is not cognizant of his duties and responsibilities of a husband and father. Hence, the Petition was GRANTED.

FACTS: On December 8, 2004, Ruby Cuevas Ng, a Filipino citizen, and Akihiro Sono, a Japanese national, contracted marriage in Quezon City. Their union bore them a child named Rieka Ng Sono. amintoto totoagung2 restoslot4d sakuratoto3 totoagung2 totoagung slotgacor4d sakuratoto qdal88 restoslot4d slotgacor4d sakuratoto2 restoslot4d slotgacor4d slot thailand cantiktoto restoslot4d totoagung restoslot4d situs toto sakuratoto totoagung amintoto totoagung slot totoagung slotgacor4d amintoto restoslot4d totoagung slotgacor4d slotgacor4d restoslot4d daftar slot gacor slot gacor 4d totoagung2 amintoto amintoto cantiktoto situs toto slot slotgacor4d slotgacor4d amintoto qdal88 qdal88 restoslot4d amintoto sakuratoto3 slotgacor4d toto slot amintoto idn slot amintoto slotgacor4d situs toto slotgacor4d   After their marriage, the spouses moved to Japan. Unfortunately, their relationship turned sour and they later decided to obtain a divorce. Thus, on August 31, 2007, they secured a “divorce decree by mutual agreement” in Japan as evidenced by the Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines. The DFA in Manila then provided an Authentication Certificate and a Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce. Likewise, the City Civil Registry Office of Manila released a Certification guaranteeing that the Divorce Certificate provided by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines was filed and recorded in its office. So, too, the fact of divorce was duly recorded in the Civil Registry of Japan as exhibited by the original copy of the Family Registry of Japan bearing the official stamp of the Mayor of Nakano-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, and supported by its corresponding English translation. cantiktoto login pay4d On May 28, 2018, Ruby filed a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry before the QC RTC.    During the initial hearing, the RTC admitted all the documentary evidence submitted by Ruby for purposes of compliance with jurisdictional requirements.  The RTC also allowed her to present her evidence ex parte after making a declaration of general default.   On January 3, 2019, the RTC granted the Petition on the thrust of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines, ratiocinating that there was a valid divorce obtained by Ruby abroad.    Displeased, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, as represented by the OSG, moved for the reconsideration of the Decision, which was eventually denied by RTC. After, the OSG challenged the RTC Decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC gravely erred in judicially recognizing a foreign divorce that was obtained by mere mutual agreement between the spouses. It centers around how Ruby and Akihiro Sono obtained their divorce, positing that a “divorce by agreement” is not worthy of recognition in the Court’s jurisdiction. Clearly, for a foreign divorce to be recognized in the Philippines, it must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. The OSG further argued that Ruby failed to prove the foreign divorce law as she did not proffer an authenticated copy of the Japanese Civil Code or one held by the official repository of custodian of Japanese public laws and records. ISSUES: 1.WON the provision under Article 26(2) of the Family Code does not apply instant case as the divorce decree was obtained by mutual agreement and not through an adversarial proceeding in court; and ● WON Ruby was able to prove the applicable law on divorce in Japan. RULING: 1.No, Article 26(2) of the Family Code applies in the instant case.    At the onset, it bears stressing that Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. Nevertheless, jurisdiction is conferred on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without under going trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of marriage. Article 26 of the Family Code – which addresses foreign marriages or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner – allows a Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The provision states:   Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in   accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized,   and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those   prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.   Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated   and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating   him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry   under Philippine law.   The case of Fujiki v Marinay elucidates the nature of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, thus –    The second paragraph of Article 26 is only a corrective measure to   address the anomaly that results :from a marriage between a Filipino, whose   laws do not allow divorce, and a foreign citizen, whose laws allow divorce.   The anomaly consists in the Filipino spouse being tied to the marriage while   the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country. The   correction is made by extending in the Philippines the effect of the foreign   divorce decree, which is already effective in the country where it was rendered. In the landmark case of Republic v.Manalo, the Court emphatically declared that Article 26(2) of the Family Code only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad capacitating the foreigner spouse to remarry, without regard as to who initiated it. Manaloinstructs that there must be a confluence of two elements in order for the second paragraph of the law to be validly applied, to wit: (1) there is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and (2) valid divorce obtained capacitating the parties to remarry regardless of the spouse who initiated the divorce proceedings.   Significantly, the Court clarified that pursuant to the majority ruling in Manalo, Article 26(2) applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is (1) obtained by the foreigner spouse; (2) obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse; and (3) obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.    Accordingly, the Court concluded that “the divorce obtained by petitioner abroad against her foreign husband, whether at her behest or acquiescence, may be recognized as valid in this jurisdiction so long as