G.R. NO. 174451; October 13, 2009
Alcazar vs. Alcazar
FACTS:
Petitioner Veronica Alcazar was married to Respondent Rey
Alcazar on October 11, 2000. The couple lived together for five days in Bacolod
before the two went to Manila to live there separately. A few days after,
respondent left for Riyadh without ever contacting petitioner. Petitioner’s
attempt to communicate with respondent during their physical separation turned
out in vain. A year and a half later, respondent returned back to the
Philippines.
Petitioner asserted that
from the time respondent arrived in the Philippines, he never
contacted her. Thus, petitioner concluded that respondent was physically
incapable of consummating his marriage with her, providing sufficient cause for
annulment of their marriage pursuant to paragraph 5, Article 45 of the Family
Code of the Philippines. Petitioner availed of an
expert witness, who presented the psychological evaluation of petitioner and
respondent.
The RTC rendered its
decision denying petitioner’s complaint for annulment of marriage, reasoning
that the acts of the respondent in not communicating
with petitioner and not living with the latter the moment he returned home from
Saudi Arabia despite their marriage do (sic) not lead to a conclusion of
psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his
defects were already present at the inception of their marriage or that these
are incurable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, as defined
by the law and jurisprudence, respondent was psychologically incapacitated to
perform the essential marital obligations.
HELD:
The law invoked by
petitioner, Article 45(5) of the Family Code, refers to lack of power to
copulate. Incapacity to consummate denotes the permanent inability on the part
of the spouses to perform the complete act of sexual intercourse. The Court
held that there had been no evidence presented to establish that respondent was
in any way physically incapable to consummate his marriage with petitioner. Petitioner even admitted
during her cross-examination that she and respondent had sexual intercourse
after their wedding and before respondent left for abroad. As can be gleaned
though from the evidence presented by petitioner and the observations of the
RTC and the Court of Appeals, it appeared that petitioner was actually seeking
the declaration
of nullity of her marriage to
respondent based on the latter’s psychological incapacity to comply with his
marital obligations of marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code and not Article 45(5) of the Family Code.
Petitioner attributed the filing of the erroneous
Complaint before the RTC to her former counsel’s mistake or gross
ignorance. But even said reason could not save petitioners Complaint from
dismissal. It is a settled doctrine that the client is bound by the acts,
even mistakes, of the counsel in the realm of procedural technique. Petitioner failed to convince the court
that such exceptional circumstances exist.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the court could
treat the Complaint as one for declaration of nullity based on Article 36 of
the Family Code, the court will still dismiss the Complaint for lack of merit,
consistent with the evidence presented by petitioner during the trial.
The evidence presented by petitioner was not enough to
merit a favorable ruling. The court further held that psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, a
refusal, or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. An
unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.
0 comments:
Post a Comment