Scribd
Upload
66 views2 pages

Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano

The respondent filed for annulment of her marriage to Toshio Hamano on the grounds of his psychological incapacity. She testified that one month after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and stopped providing financial support after two months. The court ruled that the respondent did not successfully prove Toshio's psychological incapacity. While his abandonment was irresponsible, there was no evidence presented that it was caused by a psychological disorder, such as testimony from an expert witness or medical records. The court found that abandonment alone is not sufficient to prove psychological incapacity and annul the marriage.

Uploaded by

Kathleen Joy Garcia
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
66 views2 pages

Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano

The respondent filed for annulment of her marriage to Toshio Hamano on the grounds of his psychological incapacity. She testified that one month after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and stopped providing financial support after two months. The court ruled that the respondent did not successfully prove Toshio's psychological incapacity. While his abandonment was irresponsible, there was no evidence presented that it was caused by a psychological disorder, such as testimony from an expert witness or medical records. The court found that abandonment alone is not sufficient to prove psychological incapacity and annul the marriage.

Uploaded by

Kathleen Joy Garcia
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/ 2

G.R. No.

149498 May 20, 2004

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs. LOLITA QUINTERO-HAMANO, respondent.

CORONA, J.:

FACTS:

On January 14, 1988, she and Toshio were married. Unknown to respondent, Toshio was psychologically
incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities, which incapacity became manifest only after the
marriage. One month after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and promised to return by
Christmas to celebrate the holidays with his family. After sending money to respondent for two months,
Toshio stopped giving financial support. She wrote him several times but he never responded. Sometime
in 1991, respondent learned from her friends that Toshio visited the Philippines but he did not bother to
see her and their child. The summons issued to Toshio remained unserved because he was no longer
residing at his given address.

Family Code of the Philippines provides that: Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the
time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital oblig

ISSUES:

Whether or not respondent successfully proved Toshio’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital
responsibilities.

RULINGS:

We find that the totality of evidence presented fell short of proving that Toshio was psychologically
incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly
irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. After
respondent testified on how Toshio abandoned his family, no other evidence was presented showing
that his behavior was caused by a psychological disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for an
actual medical examination, it would have greatly helped respondent’s case had she presented evidence
that medically or clinically identified his illness. This could have been done through an expert witness.
This respondent did not do.

We must remember that abandonment is also a ground for legal separation. There was no showing that
the case at bar was not just an instance of abandonment in the context of legal separation. We cannot
presume psychological defect from the mere fact that Toshio abandoned his family immediately after
the celebration of the marriage. In proving psychological incapacity, we find no distinction between an
alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. We cannot be lenient in the application of the rules merely because
the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign national. The medical
and clinical rules to determine psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of
human behavior in general. Hence, the norms used for determining psychological incapacity should
apply to any person regardless of nationality.

You might also like