Jocson vs. Empire Insurance Co.
Facts:
Agustin Jocson, who was appointed guardian of the persons and properties of his minor children Carlos,
Rodolfo, Perla, Enrique and Jesus, had a bond filed with Empire Insurance Co. for surety and managed his
children’s properties that included war damage payments, which formed part of their inheritance from
their mother.
In the course of the guardianship, Agustin submitted periodic accounts to the court for expenses for
education and clothing of the children.
After his death, Perla, who had already reached age of majority and thereafter appointed guardian of her
still minor brothers Enrique and Jesus, filed a petition for the reopening of Agustin’s accounts, claiming
that illegal disbursements were made from the guardianship funds for education and clothing. Upon
reaching age of majority, Enrique and Jesus adopted the petition and moved for declaration of illegality
of disbursements—which Empire Insurance Co. and Agustin’s administratrix appealed from—on the
ground that these should have come instead from the support, which they were entitled to receive from
their father.
Issue:
W/N the petitioners-appellants’ contention their father’s disbursements from their guardianship funds
are illegal are valid
Ruling:
No. The Court ruled that right to support (which includes education and clothing) must be demanded and
established before it becomes payable. It does not arise from the petitioners’ mere relationship with their
father. “The need for support, as already stated, cannot be presumed and especially must this be true in
the present case where it appears that the minors had means of their own.” Therefore, the disbursements
made by Agustin, which were even sanctioned by the lower court, are not illegal. Claim for support should
also be done in a separate action, not in guardianship proceedings. Judgment affirmed; without costs
since (case) is a pauper’s appeal.
Antonio vs. Reyes
FACTS:
Antonio and Reyes first got married at Manila City Hall and subsequently in church on December 8, 1990.
A child was born in April 1991 but died 5 months later. Antonio could no longer take her constant lying,
insecurities and jealousies over him so he separated from her in August 1991. He attempted reconciliation
but since her behavior did not change, he finally left her for good in November 1991. Only after their
marriage that he learned about her child with another man.
He then filed a petition in 1993 to have his marriage with Reyes declared null and void under Article 36 of
the Family Code.
The trial court gave credence to Antonio's evidence and thus declared the marriage null and void.
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. It held that the totality of evidence presented was
insufficient to establish Reyes' psychological incapacity. It declared that the requirements in the 1997
Molina case had not been satisfied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Antonio has established his cause of action for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of
the Family Code and, generally, under the Molina guidelines.
RULING:
Yes. The petitioner, aside from his own testimony, presented a psychiatrist and clinical
psychologist who attested that constant lying and extreme jealousy of Reyes is abnormal and pathological
and corroborated his allegations on his wife's behavior, which amounts to psychological incapacity.
The factual findings of the trial court are deemed binding on the SC, owing to the great weight accorded
to the opinion of the primary trier of facts. As such, it must be considered that respondent had consistently
lied about many material aspects as to her character and personality. Her fantastic ability to invent and
fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to live in a world of make-believe. This made her
psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning and significance to her
marriage.
The case sufficiently satisfies the Molina guidelines:
First, that Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of
his wife;
Second, that the root cause of Reyes' psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically
identified that was sufficiently proven by experts, and was clearly explained in the trial court's decision;
Third, that she fabricated friends and made up letters before she married him prove that her
psychological incapacity was have existed even before the celebration of marriage;
Fourth, that the gravity of Reyes' psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a
restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent;
Fifth, that she being an inveterate pathological liar makes her unable to commit the basic tenets
of relationship between spouses based on love, trust, and respect.
Sixth that the CA clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact that the marriage
was annulled by the Catholic Church. However, it is the factual findings of the judicial trier of facts, and
not of the canonical courts, that are accorded significant recognition by this Court.
Seventh, that Reyes' case is incurable considering that Antonio tried to reconcile with her but her
behavior remains unchanged.
Ty vs. Court of Appeals and Edgardo Reyes
Article 40 – Exception to the Rule
Facts:
In 1977, Reyes married Anna Maria Villanueva in a civil ceremony. They had a church wedding in
the same year as well. In 1980, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC declared their marriage
as null and void; the civil one for lack of marriage license and the subsequent church wedding due to the
lack of consent of the parties. In 1979, prior to the JDRC decision, Reyes married Ofelia. Then in 1991,
Reyes filed for an action for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Ofelia. He averred that they lack a
marriage license at the time of the celebration and that there was no judicial declaration yet as to the
nullity of his previous marriage with Anna. Ofelia presented evidence proving the existence of a valid
marriage license including the specific license number designated. The lower court however ruled that
Ofelia’s marriage with Reyes is null and void. The same was affirmed by the CA applying the provisions of
the Art 40 of the FC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the absolute nullity of the previous of marriage of Reyes can be invoked in the case
at bar.
HELD:
Art. 40 of the FC provides that, “The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” This
means that before one can enter into a second marriage he must first acquire a judicial declaration of the
nullity of the previous marriage and such declaration may be invoked on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring the previous marriage as void. For purposes other than remarriage, other evidences
may be presented and the declaration can be passed upon by the courts. In the case at bar, the lower
court and the CA cannot apply the provision of the FC. Both marriages entered by Reyes were solemnized
prior to the FC. The old CC did not have any provision that states that there must be such a declaration
before remarriage can be done hence Ofelia’s marriage with Reyes is valid. The provisions of the FC (took
effect in ’87) cannot be applied retroactively especially because they would impair the vested rights of
Ofelia under the CC which was operational during her marriage with Reyes.
