Scribd
Upload
258 views1 page

Ligeralde Vs Patalinhug Digest

This case involves a petition to annul a marriage due to the alleged psychological incapacity of the wife. Silvino claimed his wife May was immature, irresponsible, carefree, and unfaithful during their marriage. However, the Court ruled that Silvino failed to sufficiently prove that May was psychologically incapacitated. The evidence did not establish the root cause, gravity, or incurability of May's alleged condition as required. Private acts such as adultery do not alone constitute psychological incapacity. There must be evidence of a disordered personality that makes one completely unable to fulfill marital obligations. As such, the petition to annul the marriage was denied.

Uploaded by

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

Ligeralde Vs Patalinhug Digest

This case involves a petition to annul a marriage due to the alleged psychological incapacity of the wife. Silvino claimed his wife May was immature, irresponsible, carefree, and unfaithful during their marriage. However, the Court ruled that Silvino failed to sufficiently prove that May was psychologically incapacitated. The evidence did not establish the root cause, gravity, or incurability of May's alleged condition as required. Private acts such as adultery do not alone constitute psychological incapacity. There must be evidence of a disordered personality that makes one completely unable to fulfill marital obligations. As such, the petition to annul the marriage was denied.

Uploaded by

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

SILVINO A. LIGERALDE vs. MAY ASCENSION A. PATALINGHUG, ET. AL., G. R. No.

168796, April
15, 2010

FACTS:

This petition seeks to set aside the decision of the CA which reversed the decision of the RTC of
Dagupan City declaring the marriage between the petitioner and private respondent null and
void. The couple wed on October 3, 1984, and begot four children. Silvino, who described
Patalinghug as immature, irresponsible and carefree, claimed that even before marriage he
already noticed some signs of negative marital behavior. During their marriage, he caught her
in moments of infidelity. They would also have alterations despite his pleas of her changing her
ways. Despite Patalinghug’s attempt of reformation for the sake of their marriage and children,
she still bounced back to her old ways of infidelity, negligence and nocturnal activities, thus
leading Silvino to filing a complaint of psychological incapacity on the part of his wife.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage

RULING:

No, the Court view that petitioner’s evidence failed to establish respondent May’s psychological
incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. The facts of
petitioner were not sufficient to prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of private
respondent’s condition. Even with the testimony of the psychologist, Dr. Nicdao-Basilio, the
root cause of psychological incapacity was not identified, as the illness should be fully explained
in the totality of evidence of the incapacitating nature. In addition, the private acts of living an
adulterous life does not rise to the level of the “psychological incapacity” that the law requires.
There must be a manifestation of a disordered personality, which makes her completely unable
to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, not just character flaws that warrant
a conclusion of psychological malady. Petition is denied.

You might also like