Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

G.

STARE DECISIS

NCC Article 8: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal
system of the Philippines

Pesca v. Pesca FACTS:


GR. No. 136921  Petitioner and respondent married in 1975 and had 4 children
April 17, 2001  1988 – petitioner said she noticed that respondent surprisingly showed
signs of "psychological incapacity" to perform his marital covenant.
LORNA GUILLEN PESCA,  Respondent’s “true color” of being an emotionally immature and
petitioner, irresponsible husband became apparent. He was cruel and violent. He was a
habitual drinker. When cautioned to stop or, to at least, minimize his
vs. drinking, respondent would beat, slap and kick her. At one time, he chased
petitioner with a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in the presence
ZOSIMO A. PESCA, respondent. of the children. The children themselves were not spared from physical
violence.
Ponente: Vitug, J.  1992 – petitioner and her children left the conjugal abode to live in the
house of her sister in Quezon City as they could no longer bear his violent
Digest by: Arugay ways. However, petitioner decided to forgive respondent, and she returned
home 2 months later to give him a chance to change.
 1994 – respondent assaulted petitioner for about half an hour in the
presence of the children, to which the petitioner filed a complaint with the
barangay authorities, and a case was filed against the respondent for slight
physical injuries and sentenced to 11 days of imprisonment
 Petitioner sued respondent before the Regional Trial Court for the
declaration of nullity of their marriage invoking psychological incapacity.
 The trial court declared their marriage to be null and void ab initio on the
basis of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent and ordered the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Respondent appealed the decision
of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, which in turn reversed the
decision of the trial court. Thus, the marriage of respondent and petitioner
still subsists.
 Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, argued that the doctrine
enunciated in Santos v. Court of Appeals (Jan, 1995), and Republic v. Court
of Appeals and Molina (Feb, 1997) should have no retroactive application.
Petitioner further argues, the application of the Santos and Molina dicta
should at least only warrant a remand of the case to the trial court for
further proceedings and not its dismissal.

ISSUE: WON the guidelines in the case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina
should be taken to be merely advisory and not mandatory in nature.

HELD: YES. The “doctrine of Stare Decisis” in Article 8 of the Civil Code states that
Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a
part off the legal system in the Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal maxim
– “legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet” – that the construction of law obtains the
force of the law. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a
decisions of the supreme court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent
to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land.

Thus the term “psychological incapacity”, borrowed from the Canon Law, was given
legal life by the court in the case of Santos; In the case of Molina, additional
procedural guidelines to assist the courts and the parties in cases for annulment of
marriages on the grounds of psychological incapacity was added. Both judicial
decisions in the Santos and Molina case have the force and effect of law. Therefore,
the guidelines in the case of Molina is mandatory.

Petition is denied, petitioner has utterly failed, both in her allegations in the
complaint and in her evidence, to make out a case of psychological incapacity on the
part of respondent, let alone at the time of solemnization of the contract, so as to
warrant a declaration of nullity of the marriage. Emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility, invoked by her, cannot be equated with psychological incapacity.

“WHEREFORE, the herein petition is DENIED. No Costs."

Potrebbero piacerti anche