ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 147859.August 22, 2001]
R.L. LAZARO vs. G. LAZARO
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 22 2001.
G.R. No. 147859 (Rosette L. Lazaro vs. Generoso Lazaro.)
Petitioner's motion for extension of thirty (30) days within which to file petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THIS BE THE LAST EXTENSION, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period and conditioned upon the timeliness of the motion and movant's compliance with the requisites for its filing, and petitioner's ex parte manifestation dated 15 May 2001 submitting copies of official receipts evidencing payment of the prescribed legal fees and deposit for costs to form part of the record of the instant case is NOTED.
Respondent Generoso Lazaro and petitioner Rosette Lazaro are husband and wife, having been married on December 23, 1977. They have a son born on May 29, 1980, whom they named Mhajhar Roldan Librea Lazaro. Sometime in 1987, the couple started living apart.
On April 2, 1996, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage, custody/custody pendente lite, and suspension of respondent's parental authority over their child Mhajhar. The case was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City where it was docketed as JDRC No. 96-174-MK and assigned to Branch 272 of the court.
Despite due notice, respondent failed to appear at the pre-trial. Hence, petitioner was allowed to present her evidence ex parte, with Assistant Prosecutor Iluminado M. De la Pena in attendance.
Petitioner testified that, when they got married, respondent left all the wedding preparations to her; that he continued having nights out with his friends even after their marriage; that he could not keep a job and spent whatever earnings he had on drink so that she became the family's breadwinner; that he had affairs with other women and had been accused of estafa in several cases; that sometime in 1987, he bade farewell to her and their son, saying that he would join the New People's Army; and that she never saw him again after that. Petitioner's friend Myrna Villaruel corroborated petitioner's account.
Natividad Alcantara Dayan, a clinical psychologist, also testified in petitioner's behalf. She testified that based on her clinical interviews with petitioner and two other people who knew respondent well, the latter suffers from an anti-social and narcissistic personality disorder which makes him unable to comply with his marital and parental obligations; that the disorder existed even when respondent was still a child; and that the chance of his recovering from the disorder is slim.
In this decision, dated December 28, 2001, the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that "respondent's behavior was shown to be more of an outright refusal in performance of some marital obligations like providing for the family and other [ir]reconcilable personality differences between petitioner and respondent which cannot be considered as psychological incapacity within the contemplation of Art, 36 of the Family Code." The RTC held that petitioner's prayer for custody/custody pendente lite had been rendered moot by Mhajhar Lazaro's turning 18 on May 29, 1998 and that no legal ground existed for suspension of respondent's parental authority.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for review under Rule 45, alleging that "the unrebutted evidence on record clearly established that at the time of the celebration of the marriage, respondent was indeed psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital and parental obligations." Petitioner argues that the RTC should have ruled that respondent is not entitled to a share of the properties acquired by her solely through her work and industry and should likewise have awarded her moral damages, litigation expenses, and costs of the suit.
Petitioner should have filed her appeal in the Court of Appeals. Her petition raises mixed questions of fact and law. The mere fact that the evidence from which petitioner concludes that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to contract marriage is undisputed on account of respondent's failure to appear during trial does not mean that the issues raised are pure questions of law. There is a need to evaluate the evidence presented by petitioner to determine its weight and sufficiency. The test of whether an issue raises a question of law or of fact is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without receiving or evaluating the evidence, in which case it is a question of law (China Road and Bridge Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137898, Dec. 15, 2000 citing Vda. de Arroyo v. El Beaterio, 23 SCRA 525 (1968)).
Indeed, a strict scrutiny of the evidence presented in support of the petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is called for in this case, involving as it does the family, an inviolable social institution. As the Court held in Santos v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 20 (1995), every circumstance that may have some bearing on the degree, extent, and other conditions of that incapacity must, in every case, be carefully examined and evaluated so that no precipitate and indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily decreed. Hence, even if respondent failed to controvert petitioner's evidence, a review and evaluation of the same is necessary for a declaration of nullity of their marriage.
Rule 56, �6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:
An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court submitting issues of fact may be referred to the Court of Appeals for decision or appropriate action. The determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be final.
Pursuant to this rule, this case should be referred to the Court of Appeals for decision.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to REFER this case to the Court of Appeals for decision and to DIRECT the transmittal of the records to the said court.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
