[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
41 views1 page

Mendoza V Republic Digest

1) Anabelle and Dominic married in 1991 after Anabelle became pregnant from their relationship. However, Dominic had an affair in 1994 and was later fired from his job and criminally charged. 2) Anabelle claimed the marriage was null and void due to Dominic's psychological incapacity. 3) The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove Dominic's psychological incapacity, as the expert witness's findings were one-sided and based only on descriptions from Anabelle. The petition to nullify the marriage was denied.

Uploaded by

karl
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
41 views1 page

Mendoza V Republic Digest

1) Anabelle and Dominic married in 1991 after Anabelle became pregnant from their relationship. However, Dominic had an affair in 1994 and was later fired from his job and criminally charged. 2) Anabelle claimed the marriage was null and void due to Dominic's psychological incapacity. 3) The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove Dominic's psychological incapacity, as the expert witness's findings were one-sided and based only on descriptions from Anabelle. The petition to nullify the marriage was denied.

Uploaded by

karl
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Mendoza v.

Republic
G.R. No. 157649; November 12, 2012

FACTS:
Anabelle and Dominic met in 1989 upon his return to the country from his employment in Papua New
Guinea. After a month of courtship, they became intimate and their intimacy led to her pregnancy. They
got married 8 months after on June 24, 1991. Being one with the fixed income, she shouldered all of the
familys expenses. Ironically, he spent his first sales commission on a celebratory bash with his friends. In
September 1994, she discovered his illicit affair with his co-employee and they started to sleep in
separate rooms affecting their sexual relationship. Dominic eventually got fired from his employment and
was criminally charged with the violation of B.P. 22 and estafa.

ISSUE:
Is the marriage null and void on the basis of Article 36 of the Family Code?

HELD:
The appeal has no merit. The CA correctly indicated that the ill-feelings that the petitioner harbored
against Dominic furnished the basis to doubt the findings of the expert witness; that such findings were
one-sided and that he did not participate in the proceedings. The findings and conclusions on his
psychological profile were solely based on the self-serving testimonial descriptions of him by the
petitioner and her witnesses. The court finds the totality of evidence adduced by the petitioner insufficient
to prove that Dominic was psychologically unfit. Accordingly, the RTCs findings that Dominics
psychological incapacity was characterized by gravity, antecedence and incurability could not stand
scrutiny. His alleged immaturity, deceitfulness and lack of remorse did not necessarily constitute
psychological incapacity. The court denies the petition for certiorari and affirms that decision of the Court
of Appeals.

You might also like