cvr-republic v hamano

7/21/2019 Cvr-republic v Hamano

1/5

G.R. No. 149498 May 20, 2004

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.LOLITA QUINTERO-HAMANO, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

Before us is a petition for review of the decision 1 dated August 2 , 2 1 of the Court of Appea!s 2 affir"ing thedecision # dated August 2$, 1%%& of the 'egiona! (ria! Court of 'i)a!, Branch &2, dec!aring as nu!! and void the"arriage contracted *etween herein respondent +o!ita . -uintero /a"ano and her hus*and (oshio /a"ano.

On 0une 1&, 1%% , respondent +o!ita -uintero /a"ano fi!ed a co"p!aint for dec!aration of nu!!it of her "arriageto her hus*and (oshio /a"ano, a 0apanese nationa!, on the ground of ps cho!ogica! incapacit .

'espondent a!!eged that in Octo*er 1%$ , she and (oshio started a co""on !aw re!ationship in 0apan. (he !ater!ived in the 3hi!ippines for a "onth. (hereafter, (oshio went *ac4 to 0apan and sta ed there for ha!f of 1%$&. OnNove"*er 1 , 1%$&, she gave *irth to their chi!d.

On 0anuar 15, 1%$$, she and (oshio were "arried * 0udge Isauro . Ba!deria of the unicipa! (ria! Court ofBacoor, Cavite. 6n4nown to respondent, (oshio was ps cho!ogica!! incapacitated to assu"e his "arita!responsi*i!ities, which incapacit *eca"e "anifest on! after the "arriage. One "onth after their "arriage, (oshioreturned to 0apan and pro"ised to return * Christ"as to ce!e*rate the ho!ida s with his fa"i! . After sending"one to respondent for two "onths, (oshio stopped giving financia! support. She wrote hi" severa! ti"es *ut henever responded. So"eti"e in 1%%1, respondent !earned fro" her friends that (oshio visited the 3hi!ippines *uthe did not *other to see her and their chi!d.

(he su""ons issued to (oshio re"ained unserved *ecause he was no !onger residing at his given address.Conse7uent! , on 0u! $, 1%% , respondent fi!ed an ex parte "otion for !eave to effect service of su""ons *pu*!ication. (he tria! court granted the "otion on 0u! 12, 1%% . In August 1%% , the su""ons, acco"panied * acop of the petition, was pu*!ished in a newspaper of genera! circu!ation giving (oshio 18 da s to fi!e his answer.Because (oshio fai!ed to fi!e a responsive p!eading after the !apse of da s fro" pu*!ication, respondent fi!ed a"otion dated Nove"*er 8, 1%% to refer the case to the prosecutor for investigation. (he tria! court granted the"otion on Nove"*er &, 1%% .

On Nove"*er 2 , 1%% , prosecutor 'o!ando I. 9on)a!es fi!ed a report finding that no co!!usion e:isted *etweenthe parties. /e pra ed that the Office of the 3rovincia! 3rosecutor *e a!!owed to intervene to ensure that theevidence su*"itted was not fa*ricated. On ;e*ruar 1#, 1%%&, the tria! court granted respondent/E'E;O'E, pre"ises considered, the "arriage *etween petitioner +o!ita . -uintero /a"ano and(oshio /a"ano, is here* dec!ared N6++ and ?OID.

(he Civi! 'egister of Bacoor, Cavite and the Nationa! Statistics Office are ordered to "a4e proper entriesinto the records of the afore na"ed parties pursuant to this @udg"ent of the Court.

SO O'DE'ED. 5


2/5

In dec!aring the nu!!it of the "arriage on the ground of (oshio


3/5

>e ru!e in favor of petitioner.

(he Court is "indfu! of the po!ic of the 1%$& Constitution to protect and strengthen the fa"i! as the *asicautono"ous socia! institution and "arriage as the foundation of the fa"i! . 11 (hus, an dou*t shou!d *e reso!vedin favor of the va!idit of the "arriage. 12

'espondent see4s to annu! her "arriage with (oshio on the ground of ps cho!ogica! incapacit . Artic!e # of the

;a"i! Code of the 3hi!ippines provides that=

Art. # . A "arriage contracted * an part who, at the ti"e of the ce!e*ration, was ps cho!ogica!! incapacitatedto co"p! with the essentia! "arita! o*!igations of "arriage, sha!! !i4ewise *e void even if such incapacit *eco"es"anifest on! after its so!e"ni)ation.

In Molina , we ca"e up with the fo!!owing guide!ines in the interpretation and app!ication of Artic!e # for theguidance of the *ench and the *ar=

1 (he *urden of proof to show the nu!!it of the "arriage *e!ongs to the p!aintiff. An dou*t shou!d *ereso!ved in favor of the e:istence and continuation of the "arriage and against its disso!ution and nu!!it .(his is rooted in the fact that *oth our Constitution and our !aws cherish the va!idit of "arriage and unit

of the fa"i! . : : :

2 T!" #oo* +a " o *!" / y+!o o('+a '%+a/a+'*y * $" 3a "&'+a y o# + '%'+a y '&"%*' '"&,3$ a "("& '% *!" +o / a'%*, 3+ '+'"%* y /#o5"% $y "6/"#* a%& 3& + "a# y "6/ a'%"& '% *!"&"+' 'o%. Artic!e # of the ;a"i! Code re7uires that the incapacit "ust *e ps cho!ogica! not ph sica!,a!though its "anifestations and or s "pto"s "a *e ph sica!. (he evidence "ust convince the court thatthe parties, or one of the", was "enta!! or ps chica!! i!! to such an e:tent that the person cou!d nothave 4nown the o*!igations he was assu"ing, or 4nowing the", cou!d not have given va!id assu"ptionthereof. A!though no e:a"p!e of such incapacit need *e given here so as not to !i"it the app!ication ofthe provision under the princip!e of ejusdem generis Sa!ita vs. agto!is, 2## SC'A 1 , 0une 1#, 1%%5 ,neverthe!ess such root cause "ust *e identified as a ps cho!ogica! i!!ness and its incapacitating naturefu!! e:p!ained. E:pert evidence "a *e given * 7ua!ified ps chiatrists and c!inica! ps cho!ogists.

# (he incapacit "ust *e proven to *e e:isting at the ti"e of the ce!e*ration of the "arriage. (heevidence "ust show that the i!!ness was e:isting when the parties e:changed their I do


4/5

(he essentia! "arita! o*!igations "ust *e those e"*raced * Artic!es $ up to &1 of the ;a"i! Codeas regards the hus*and and wife as we!! as Artic!es 22 , 221 and 228 of the sa"e Code in regard toparents and their chi!dren. Such non co"p!ied "arita! o*!igation s "ust a!so *e stated in the petition,proven * evidence and inc!uded in the te:t of the decision.

& Interpretations given * the Nationa! Appe!!ate atri"onia! (ri*una! of the Catho!ic Church in the3hi!ippines, whi!e not contro!!ing or decisive, shou!d *e given great respect * our courts. : : :

$ (he tria! court "ust order the prosecuting attorne or fisca! and the So!icitor 9enera! to appear ascounse! for the state. No decision sha!! *e handed down un!ess the So!icitor 9enera! issues a certification,which wi!! *e 7uoted in the decision, *rief! stating therein his reasons for his agree"ent or opposition, asthe case "a *e, to the petition. (he So!icitor 9enera!, a!ong with the prosecuting attorne , sha!! su*"itto the court such certification within fifteen 18 da s fro" the date the case is dee"ed su*"itted forreso!ution of the court. (he So!icitor 9enera! sha!! discharge the e7uiva!ent function of the defensorvinculi conte"p!ated under Canon 1 %8. 1# e"phasis supp!ied

(he guide!ines incorporate the three *asic re7uire"ents ear!ier "andated * the Court in Santos = ps cho!ogica!incapacit "ust *e characteri)ed * a gravit * @uridica! antecedence and c incura*i!it . 15 (he foregoingguide!ines do not re7uire that a ph sician e:a"ine the person to *e dec!ared ps cho!ogica!! incapacitated. In fact,

the root cause "a *e "edica!! or c!inica!! identified. >hat is i"portant is the presence of evidence that canade7uate! esta*!ish the part e now proceed to deter"ine whether respondent successfu!! proved (oshio


5/5

of studies of hu"an *ehavior in genera!. /ence, the nor"s used for deter"ining ps cho!ogica! incapacit shou!dapp! to an person regard!ess of nationa!it .

In Pesca vs. Pesca 1% this Court dec!ared that "arriage is an invio!a*!e socia! institution that the State cherishesand protects. >hi!e we co""iserate with respondent, ter"inating her "arriage to her hus*and "a notnecessari! *e the fitting denoue"ent.

HEREFORE , the petition for review is here* GRANTE) . (he decision dated August 2$, 1%%& of the Court ofAppea!s is here* RE7ERSE) and SET ASI)E .

SO OR)ERE) .

cvr-republic v hamano

Documents