Scribd
Upload
17 views

Matias vs. Dagdag, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001

Erlinda Matias filed a petition to nullify her marriage to Avelino Parangan on the grounds of psychological incapacity, claiming he would disappear for months at a time, force her to have sex against her will and physically abuse her when she refused. The court did not grant the petition because Erlinda failed to provide expert medical or psychiatric testimony about Avelino's alleged psychological incapacity as required. Additionally, allegations that Avelino was a fugitive from justice were not sufficiently proven to support nullifying the marriage.

Uploaded by

Mariam Petilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views

Matias vs. Dagdag, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001

Erlinda Matias filed a petition to nullify her marriage to Avelino Parangan on the grounds of psychological incapacity, claiming he would disappear for months at a time, force her to have sex against her will and physically abuse her when she refused. The court did not grant the petition because Erlinda failed to provide expert medical or psychiatric testimony about Avelino's alleged psychological incapacity as required. Additionally, allegations that Avelino was a fugitive from justice were not sufficiently proven to support nullifying the marriage.

Uploaded by

Mariam Petilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Matias vs. Dagdag, G.R. No.

109975, February 9, 2001


FACTS: Erlinda Matias filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage to
Avelino Parangan on the ground of psychological incapacity under Art 36. He would
disappear for months & reappear. He wld force his wife to submit sexual intercourse & if
she refused, he wld inflict phy injuries. Erlinda learned that Avelino was imprisoned for
some crime & that he escaped from jail.
ISSUE: Shld the petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity under Art 36 be granted.
HELD: NO. Erlinda failed to comply with guideline No. 2 which requires that the root
cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently
proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged
psychological incapacity of her husband. Further, the allegation that the husband is a
fugitive from justice was not sufficiently proven.

You might also like