Scribd
Upload
419 views1 page

Legal Research - Case Digest - Hernandez v. CA, GR No. 126010

Lucita filed for annulment from Mario, claiming psychological incapacity due to Mario's alcoholism, gambling, womanizing, and having an illegitimate child. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that Lucita did not provide evidence that Mario was psychologically incapacitated at the time of marriage. While Mario's actions were problematic, they did not constitute psychological incapacity under the law. The court noted Lucita's other claims would need to be addressed in separate legal proceedings.

Uploaded by

LawrenceAlteza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
419 views1 page

Legal Research - Case Digest - Hernandez v. CA, GR No. 126010

Lucita filed for annulment from Mario, claiming psychological incapacity due to Mario's alcoholism, gambling, womanizing, and having an illegitimate child. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that Lucita did not provide evidence that Mario was psychologically incapacitated at the time of marriage. While Mario's actions were problematic, they did not constitute psychological incapacity under the law. The court noted Lucita's other claims would need to be addressed in separate legal proceedings.

Uploaded by

LawrenceAlteza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Psychological Incapacity Case: Lucita Estrella Hernandez,

petitioner, v. Court of Appeals, and Mario C. Hernandez,


respondents, GR No. 126010, Dec. 08, 1999 (Second
Division)
Subject: Legal Research
Topic: Psychological Incapacity
Title: Lucita Estrella Hernandez, petitioner,
v.
Court of Appeals, and Mario C. Hernandez, respondents,
GR No. 126010, Dec. 08, 1999 (Second Division)
Facts
(describe events bet. the parties leading to the litigation, how the case came before the court that’s
now deciding it, who the plaintiff and defendant are, basis for plaintiff’s suit, ruling whether the court
affirmed or reversed the case)
Lucita Estrella Hernandez and Mario C. Hernandez were married and had three children. Lucita,
petitioner, filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City a petition for annulment on the ground of
psychological incapacity of the respondent, Mario. The petitioner claimed that the respondent failed to
perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household.
Respondent engaged in drinking sprees, gambled and womanized at which came a point that he had an
illegitimate child.

Petitioner also added in her petition full custody of her three children, Php 9,000 monthly financial
support for the children, sole ownership of the parcel of land purchased during their marriage as well
as of the jeep which private respondent took when he left his family.

RTC dismissed the petition. This decision was affirmed by the CA.

Issue
(WoN, question that the court must decide to resolve, rule of law that governs the dispute)
Whether or not the respondent was psychologically incapacitated at the time of his marriage to the
petitioner

Ruling
(answer to the issue, supported by the court’s reasoning explaining and supporting the decision)
The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving that the respondent was psychologically
incapacitated. The respondent’s habitual alcoholism, womanizing and cohabitation with those he’s had
extra-marital affairs with do not constitute psychological incapacity. Art. 36 of the Family Code
requires that incapacity must be psychological, not physical, although the manifestations or symptoms
are physical.

As for the other claims prayed for by the petitioner, the Court believed that those should be litigated
in a separate proceeding for legal separation, dissolution of property regime, and/or custody of
children.

Judgment affirmed.

You might also like