Ting vs Ting

BENJAMIN G. TING,

Petitioner, 

- versus -

CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 166562

March 31, 2009

Facts:

Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez-Ting first met in 1972 while they were classmates in medical school. They fell in love, and they were wed on July 26, 1975 in Cebu City when respondent was already pregnant with their first child. On October 21, 1993, after being married for more than 18 years to petitioner and while their youngest child was only two years old, Carmen filed a verified petition before the RTC of Cebu City praying for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. She claimed that Benjamin suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of the celebration of their marriage, which, however, only became manifest thereafter.

Carmens allegations of Benjamins psychological incapacity consisted of the following manifestations:

1. Benjamins alcoholism, which adversely affected his family relationship and his profession;

2. Benjamins violent nature brought about by his excessive and regular drinking;

3. His compulsive gambling habit, as a result of which Benjamin found it necessary to sell the family car twice and the property he inherited from his father in order to pay off his debts, because he no longer had money to pay the same; and

4. Benjamins irresponsibility and immaturity as shown by his failure and refusal to give regular financial support to his family.

In his answer, Benjamin denied being psychologically incapacitated. He maintained that he is a respectable person, as his peers would confirm. He also pointed out that it was he who often comforted and took care of their children, while Carmen played mahjong with her friends twice a week. Both presented expert witnesses (psychiatrist) to refute each others claim. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent declaring the marriage null and void.

Petitioner appealed to the CA. CA reversed RTC’s decision. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Molina guidelines should not be applied to this case

Issues:

1. Whether the CA violated the rule on stare decisis when it refused to follow the guidelines set forth under the Santos and Molina cases,

2. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the requirement of proof of psychological incapacity for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code has been liberalized,

3. Whether the CAs decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void is in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

Held:

1. No. respondent’s argument that the doctrinal guidelines prescribed in Santos and Molina should not be applied retroactively for being contrary to the principle of stare decisis is no longer new.

2. The Case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own attendant facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.

3. There is no evidence that adduced by respondent insufficient to prove that petitioner is psychologically unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a husband, and more particularly, that he suffered from such psychological incapacity as of the date of the marriage eighteen (18) years ago.