Friday, December 16, 2011

Ligeralde vs. Patalinghug and Republic , G.R. No. 168796, 15 April 2010

FACTS: During the marriage of A (Husband) observed that B (wife) was acting immature, irresponsible and carefree. B admitted to A to having lived an adulterous life. A came to believe that B is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. A approached Dr. C who performed a psychological evaluation which certified that B was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations; that the incapacity started when she was still young and became manifest after marriage; and that the same was serious and incurable.

Issue: Is Sexual Infidelity of the wife Tantamount to Psychological Incapacity?

RATIO: B’s act of living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage.

Neither A’s testimony nor the psychologist findings failed to establish the root cause of B’s incapacity to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state. The Court stressed that the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, its incapacitating nature fully explained and established by the totality of the evidence presented during trial.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "Ligeralde vs. Patalinghug and Republic , G.R. No. 168796, 15 April 2010"

Post a Comment