Reaction Paper

7/17/2019 Reaction Paper

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reaction-paper-5690fc829ccd4 1/3

Page 1 of 3Reaction Paper

Justice Padilla LectureConcepcion, RE

REACTION PAPER

On Psychological Incapacity as Ground for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Lecture delivered by: Justice BaltazarPadilla

Concepcion, Rey Edward

!n discussing psyc"ological incapacity as grounds for declaration of

nullity of #arriage, #ost la$ boo%s $ould cite Republic v& C' and (olina)*&R& 1+-.3, /ebruary 13, 100-& !n t"e (olina case, t"e 2upre#e Court

"as laid do$n guidelines in deter#ination of psyc"ological incapacity aslegal ground for declaration of nullity of #arriage& !n e v& e, )*&R& 4o&

1.1-03, /ebruary 13, 5++0, t"e "ig"est Court ruled t"at for so long as t"etotality of evidence s"o$s t"e psyc"ological capacity on t"e parties, eit"er

one or bot", t"e #arriage s"all be declared null& "e testi#ony of t"e e6pert

$itness or "is personal e6a#ination of t"e parties is not re7uired, contrary tot"e guidelines in t"e (olina case& Recently, a rare case $as pro#ulgated by

t"e 2upre#e Court, declaring t"e nullity of #arriage& "e Court "eld t"at t"eevidence re7uired $as duly presented&

Cliché as it #ay be, and seen as introduction as it #ay be in #ost of

t"e reaction papers, it is of t"e "u#ble opnion of t"is student t"at 'rticle 3.of t"e /a#ily Code is a gray area, t"at even t"e 2upre#e Court see#s to

"ave a diverse opnion fro# ti#e to ti#e, and #ost probably, fro# case to

case& 8"at is only co##on about cases involving declaration of nullity of#arriage is 'rticle 3. of t"e /a#ily Code& 9ne of t"e students in t"e lecture

delivered by Justice BaltazarPadilla posed a 7uestion as to t"e 7uantu# of

proof re7uired in declaration of nullity& Being a civil case, it is an ele#entaryrule t"at preponderance of evidence is re7uired& Per"aps $"at t"e student

$as trying to as% $as t"e guidelines in proving t"e psyc"ological incapacityas ground of nullity& !t is $ort" as%ing for because t"ere is no categorical

para#eters as to $"et"er t"e person is psyc"ological incapacitated or not&

Even t"e psyc"iatrists and psyc"ologists cannot deter#ine t"e de#arcationline as to #ere unability and disability& 8"en as%ed, 8"en is a person

psyc"ologically incapacitated; t"e ans$er of $"ic" al$ays lies on t"e

prerogative of t"e e6pert&

"is is not and never a clear suggestion t"at t"e courts #ust be

bounded by psyc"ologists on t"is #atter& "e court $ill al$ays re#ain a

court of la$, so it #ust be bound by t"e rules of la$& "us, t"e court #ayonly give great $eig"t to t"e testi#ony of t"e e6pert $itness, but suc"

testi#ony is not controlling of t"e decision of t"e court& But t"in%ing aboutt"e #atter t$ice, t"e process of deter#ination, on t"e part of t"e <udge, of





incapacity of t"e party or parties is a tas% of a great $eig"t& =oes t"e <udge%no$ t"e e6planation be"ind every action of t"e incapacitated; !s it a

#edical illness deeply rooted in t"e #edical "istory of t"e party; "ese arebut so#e of t"e 7uestions oug"t to be deter#ined by t"e <udge, as it is not

deter#ined $it" aut"ority of t"e e6pert $itness&

Considering t"e tas%ing duty of <udges on t"is #atter, a re#edy is

being soug"t by aggrieved parties as to paving $ay of lig"t on t"is

see#ingly obscure #atter& 9n t"e ot"er "and, $"ile #any are see%ing for#ore categorical guidelines, did t"e Congress really #ade t"e la$ as to be

opente6tured so as to discourage nullity of #arriage; (any $ould argue

t"at it $as #ade to be so because of t"e diversity of c"aracteristics of#an%ind and so t"at t"e danger of classifying #an as incapacitated #ay be

reduced if not eli#inated& 'fter all, it "as a fatal conse7uences& /ollo$ing

t"is spirit of t"e la$, #ore often t"an not, t"e 2upre#e Court denies severalpetitions, per"aps not because of t"e #erits of t"e case itself, but of t"e

sanctity of #arriage as conte#plated in t"e fa#ily code, and specifically,'rticle 3.&

'rticle 3., being a ground of nullity of #arriage, is so strict after all,t"at it is al#ost an illusory provision& !t is so to discourage persons fro#

invo%ing t"at ground <ust for t"e sa%e of convenience& !f liberal construction

of t"at ground $as really intended, t"e Congress itself, $"ose la$#a%ingpo$er is plenary, s"ould "ave #ade guidelines in deter#ining psyc"ological

incapacity by t"e psyc"ologist or psyc"iatrist, not t"e Court& 'lt"oug" t"e

deter#ination of psyc"ological incapacity as ground for declaration ofnullity re#ains $it"in t"e po$er of courts& "e >guidelines? are not

deter#inative of status of psyc"ological incapacity, but are #ere rules of

procedure to be follo$ed, suc" t"at a fla$ in co#pliance of suc" rules s"all

give t"e court t"e aut"ority to outrig"tly deny t"e petition& !t $ould see#t"at construction of 'rticle 3. $ould be even #ore strict $it" t"ese

>guidelines,? but in reality, it #ust not& !f t"ese guidelines are strict enoug"to deter#ine an i#partial re#ar% t"at t"ere is psyc"ological incapacity, t"e

court, t"oug" not entirely bound, is left $it" fe$ consideration in favor of#arriage& 's a conse7uence, preponderance of evidence is present against

#arriage&

P"ilippines is predo#inantly, a C"ristian country& Being so, C"ristian

principles are found in #ost of t"e peoples belief& '#ong t"ese principles ist"e sanctity of #arriage& !f not because of t"is belief, divorce in t"e

P"ilippines #ig"t "ave been effective today& "e C"ristian fait" is so $elle#bedded in #any /ilipinos, t"at it "as a great effect in t"e /a#ily Code, in

essence and in spirit& (arriage is t"e foundation of t"a fa#ily, $"ic" is t"e

basic and an inviolable social institution, as defined by t"e /a#ily Code&"ese are t"e reason, in #ost cere#ony, t"oug" not a for#al re7uisite, apart





fro# t"e declaration of ta%ing eac" ot"er as "usband and $ife, a vo$ isli%e$ise #ade in saying t"at t"e #arrying couple $ill live toget"er, >for

better and for $orse, for ric"er and for poorer, in sic%ness and in "ealt", untildeat" do us part&? But as in t"e lecture, under t"e conte#plation of C"ristian

doctrine )considering t"at it "as influenced t"e /a#ily Code t"at #uc",does t"e >in sic%ness and in "ealt"? clause include psyc"ological incapacity;

Documents

Reaction Paper