ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 159447. December 8, 2003]

PASCUAL vs. CAPARAS-PASCUAL

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 8 2003 .

G.R. No. 159447 (Eddie "Butch" Pascual vs. Marilyn Caparas-Pascual.)

This is a petition to review, under Rule 45, the August 26, 2002 decision [1] cralaw and July 16, 2003 resolution of the Court of Appeals [2] cralaw in CA-GR CV No. 61791 affirming the trial court's [3] cralaw decision declaring the nullity of the parties' marriage due to petitioner's psychological incapacity.

At the outset, the petition should have been denied for having been belatedly filed on October 7, 2003 and not within the extended period which lapsed on September 12, 2003. Further, the legal fees were not paid on time. However, due to the importance of the issues involved, we brush aside these procedural lapses and rule on the matters raised by the petition.

Petitioner Eddie Pascual and respondent Marilyn Caparas met sometime in 1972 or 1973 but started seeing each other regularly only after three years. Later, when respondent found out she was pregnant, the couple decided to get married in civil rites on February 22, 1979 and again at the Hilton Hotel in Manila on March 10, 1979. They begot four children: Maria Nina Clarissa, Maria Melissa Rose, Pio Butz II and Maria Christine Joy.

Initially, the couple lived separately because petitioner's parents did not yet know of the union. When the couple eventually lived together, petitioner was rarely home since he stayed at his disco pub most of the time. After the birth of their first child, petitioner stayed home more often but did not give up drinking as he still imbibed an average of eight bottles of beer a day.

Petitioner first physically abused respondent sometime in 1983 because of a simple argument. She did not report the matter to the police because she thought it was a one-time occurrence. However, petitioner continued to physically abuse her and in 1995, respondent decided she could not take anymore. She filed charges against him for physical injuries, grave threats and grave coercion. Petitioner pleaded guilty and was convicted.

On July 25, 1995, respondent filed for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of petitioner's psychological incapacity. During the trial, respondent presented Dr. Lourdes Lapuz who testified that petitioner was suffering from a personality defect known as passive- aggressive disorder which prevented him from fully relating to a woman. This was confirmed by Dr. Efren Reyes, a psychiatrist from the National Center for Mental Health, who was presented by the petitioner. Dr. Reyes was of the opinion that petitioner was suffering from an even more serious personality defect known as ambulatory schizophrenia. The two psychiatrists testified that petitioner's condition was not curable as 70% of psychiatric disorders had no cure. Treatment could modify the symptoms but the possibility of relapse or remission was still very high.

On June 5, 1998, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 167, found petitioner psychologically incapacitated and declared the marriage null and void:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the marriage between the petitioner, Marilyn Caparas Pascual and respondent Eddie "Butch" Pascual celebrated on February 22, 1979 and on March 10, 1979 both in Manila null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of respondent's psychological incapacity and their conjugal partnership dissolved. Henceforth, they shall be governed by a complete separation of property.The liquidation/partition/distribution of their properties, and the delivery of the presumptive legitimes of the children shall be done in a separate proceeding. For this purpose, a separate order of hearing with notice to creditors shall be issued by this Court.

2. All the children, Ma. Nina Clarissa, Ma. Melissa Rose, Pio Butz II and Ma. Christine Jay all surnamed Caparas Pascual shall remain legitimate. They shall all be in the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner and the said children shall stay in the conjugal dwelling situated in San Juan, Metro Mania. The respondent is hereby ordered to vacate the said property so that the petitioner and their children shall be able to stay there together. Respondent shall continue to exercise his right of visitation on the children as per Order of August 17, 1995, in the meantime;

3. Both parties must support the above stated children. Considering however that no evidence was adduced on their support requirements and the respondent's ability to give support, no pronouncement as to the amount of support which respondent must give to them is in the meantime.

4. Henceforth, the petitioner shall be known by her maiden name, CAPARAS.

5. The respondent is forever barred from calling the petitioner by telephone, approaching, following or stalking her and must keep a distance from her of not less than 100 meters. On the implementation of visitation rights of the children as per Order of August 17, 1995, the respondent must fetch the children from the petitioner through an authorized person as may be agreed upon by the parties, through their respective counsel. Respondent must strictly comply with this Order.

Let copies of this decision be furnished the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City as well as the National Statistics Office. The latter offices are hereby ordered to return the registry receipts of this Decision for record purposes of this Court.

SO ORDERED. [4] cralaw

In his appeal to the CA, petitioner questioned the award of custody to respondent and his eviction from the conjugal dwelling. However, the CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner then filed, on October 1, 2002, a motion for reconsideration signed by all the Pascual children regarding his eviction from the conjugal home since it was the children's decision to live with him. The CA denied the motion with regard to petitioner's eviction from the conjugal home but granted the wish of Maria Christine Joy, the only minor child, to stay with respondent on Mondays and Tuesdays, with petitioner on Wednesdays and Thursdays and with her eldest sister Maria Nina Clarissa for the rest of the week. The CA's Eighth Division granted her request after a closed-door meeting with her and her older siblings.

Petitioner, on July 30, 2003, filed another motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the CA. Thus, petitioner filed this petition with this Court and raised the following assignments of error:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECREEING THE NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT BASED ON ALLEGED PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY CONSIDERING THAT THE EXTENT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INVOKED BY RESPONDENT CAPARAS DOES NOT LEGALLY SUFFICE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AS ENVISIONED IN ART. 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROVEN BY RESPONDENT CAPARAS JUSTIFIED A FINDING OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY TO WARRANT A DECLARATION OF NULLITY CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT SUCH A STATE EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PARTIES, NOR THAT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER OF PETITIONER WAS OF AN INCURABLE CHARACTER.

III

CONSIDERING THAT THE TRIAL COURT (RTC) ITSELF HELD THAT THE LIQUIDATION, PARTITION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE CONJUGAL PROPERTIES INCLUDING DELIVERY OF THE PRESUMPTIVE LEGITIMES OF THE PARTIES' CHILDREN "SHALL BE DONE IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDING", AND ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE IS FINALLY UPHELD, THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING PETITIONER'S EVICTION FROM THE FAMILY HOME AS SAID EVICTION WILL CONSTITUTE DEPRIVATION OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

IV

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECREEING THE EVICTION OF PETITIONER (HUSBAND) FROM THE FAMILY HOME DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT HE IS A CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES CONSTITUTING THE FAMILY HOME AND, AS SUCH, IS PROTECTED BY CIVIL LAW AND THE ORGANIC ACT. [5] cralaw

In his appeal to the CA, petitioner questioned only the award of custody to respondent and his eviction from the conjugal house. [6] cralaw He did not question the trial court's finding that the marriage was void due to his psychological incapacity. Thus, such finding has become final and beyond this Court's power of review. [7] cralaw Though an appeal throws open the entire case for review, it is a settled principle that only errors claimed and assigned by a party will be considered by the Court, except errors affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter. [8] cralaw It is too late for petitioner to question the trial court's decision nullifying his marriage to respondent. Besides, the Court does not see any reason to reverse the court a quo's decision which was logical, well-written and consistent with law and jurisprudence.

Regarding the third and fourth issues, there is no merit in petitioner's argument that his eviction from the conjugal home would be a deprivation of property without due process of law. Ownership of the house is yet to be decided in the separate liquidation proceedings over the couple's property.

Thus, no deprivation of property has occurred because respondent's possession of the house is still subject to whatever final decision on ownership might be made in the liquidation proceedings. Moreover, to order respondent to move out of the conjugal dwelling will just be a waste of time, money and effort for both parties since the order is only temporary and may still be modified by the outcome of the liquidation proceedings. Thus, to avoid inconvenience to all parties concerned, the Court deems it fair and just to order the parties to maintain the status quo, with respondent maintaining possession of the house until its ownership is finally settled in the liquidation proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Renato C. Dacudao.

[2] cralaw Eighth Division.

[3] cralaw Penned by Judge Rosalina L. Luna Pison.

[4] cralaw Rollo , pp. 46-49.

[5] cralaw Rollo, pp. 20-21.

[6] cralaw C.A Decision dated August 26, 2002; Rollo, p. 49.

[7] cralaw 2 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court (1996 edition), citing Adiarte v. CA, 49 O.G. 1421.

[8] cralaw Rule 51, Section 8. Questions that may be decided. - No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors. (Revised Rules of Court)


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com