Benjamin G. Ting, Petitioner vs. Carmen M.

Velez-Ting, Respondent
G.R. No. 166562
March 31, 2009

Facts:
This is to review the petition on certiorari seeking to set aside the Amended Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The CA in its decision and resolution affirmed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court(RTC) declaring the marriage of the petitioner and the
respondent null and void ab initio pursuant to Article 6 of the Family Code.

Benjamin G. Ting, petitioner and Carmen M. Velez-Ting, respondent was classmate

when they are in med school in 1972. They fell in love and get married on July 26, 1975 in
Cebu City. In September 1975, Benjamin passed the board exam and immediately proceeds
to take residency program to become surgeon but unfortunately he shifted to anesthesiology
in 2 years. By 1979, Benjamin finished his residency program and in 1980, he began working
for Velez Hospital, owned by Carmen`s family as a member of its active staff and her wife is
the hospitals treasurer.

On October 21, 1993, after being married for 18 years, Carmen filed a verified
petition before the RTC praying for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage based on
Article 6 of the Family Code. Carmen is aware even before her marriage to the respondent
that Benjamin was psychological incapacity. Carmen`s allegations to Benjamin are the
following: Benjamin`s alcoholism was really affect his own career and his family, he become
violent because of excessive drunkenness, he sold all his property even the jewelry of his
wife just to pay her own debts, and he become irresponsible and immature for not
supporting her family. But after all this allegations, Benjamin denied that he is psychological
incapacitated. He maintained that he is a respectable person, as his peers confirm it.

Issue:
Whether the CA violated the rule on stare decisis when it refused to follow the
guidelines set forth under the Santos and Molina cases.

Ruling:
No. respondent`s argument that the doctrinal guidelines prescribed in Santos and
Molina should not be applied retroactively for being contrary to the principle of stare decisis
is no longer new.

The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rules
established by this Court in its final decisions. It is based on the principle that once a
question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to
further argument. The latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere means "stand by the
thing and do not disturb the calm."