STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

CASTILLO, E.G.

GR NO. 166562, MAR 31 1995

PETITIONER: BENJAMIN G. TING

RESPONDENT: CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING

NACHURA, J.:

I. FACTS
Benjamin Ting and Carmen met during med school, fell in-love and eventually married. The couple first
resided at Benjamin’s family home in Mandaue, then subsequently moved to Carmen’s family home in Cebu.
Benjamin worked as an Anesthesiologist for a hospital owned by Carmen’s family where the latter served as
its treasurer.

After 18 years of marriage, Carmen filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family
Code. She claimed that Benjamin suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of celebration of
their marriage which only became manifest after. She stated the following:
 Prior to their marriage, she is already aware of her husband’s alcoholism and gambling activities. This
continued well into their marriage and sometime resulted in violence
 His drinking habits even affected his job as an anesthesiologist where he was unable to perform his
work and was perceived as unreliable by his colleagues
 Gambling addiction that led to the sale of the family car, twice and inherited property.
 Benjamin refused to give financial support to the family and neglected his obligation to their children.

Benjamin denied being psychologically incapacitated and stated the following:

 He is an active member of social and athletic clubs and would only gamble and drink for social
reasons.
 He is not a violent person, except when provoked by circumstances
 Claimed that Carmen would collect his PF while serving as an anesthesiologist in their hospital. And
provided financial support within his means.
 It was him wo comforted the family while Carmen played mahjong.

During trial, Carmen presented Susana Wasawas, who served as nanny to their children. Wasawas stated that
she personally witnessed Benjamin’s maltreatment of her wife in front of the children.
Carmen also presented an expert witness in Dr. Onate who made an evaluation of Benjamin as having a
personality disorder, based on stenographic notes takes during deposition because Benjamin already went to
South Africa for work.

Benjamin presented Dr. Obra as his expert witness which stated that Benjamin had no personality disorder as
evidenced in stenographic notes, interview with Benjamin’s brother and a psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Pentz
in South Africa.

The RTC ruled in favor of Carmen. Which prompted Benjamin to appeal to the CA citing the cases of Santos
and Molina. Carmen argued that Molina guidelines should not be applied retroactively since the decision was
made for that case in 1997 and she first filed her petition with the RTC in 1993. The CA eventually favored
Carmen hence this petition by Benjamin.
II. ISSUE
 Whether or not the CA violated stare decisis when it refused to follow the guidelines set forth under Santos
and Molina cases.
III. RULING – petition is GRANTED
 Yes. The interpretation and or construction of a law by courts constitute a part of the law as of the date the
statute is enacted.

Early limits to the application of stare decisis were recognized, it would not be followed if:
 Plainly unreasonable
 Courts of equal authority developed conflicting decisions
 Binding force was the actual principle necessary and not the reasoning used

Strains of Stare Decisis

 Vertical – duty of lower courts to apply decisions of higher courts in cases involving same facts
 Horizontal – high courts to follow its own precedence

TING v. VELEZ-TING
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
CASTILLO, E.G.

o Constitutional – interpretation of the Constitution

o Statutory – interpretation of statutes

TING v. VELEZ-TING