Scribd
Upload
117 views5 pages

Ting vs. Velez-Ting - Case Digests

1) Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez were married in 1975 and had six children together. 2) In 1993, after 18 years of marriage, Carmen filed for an annulment claiming Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated by his alcoholism, gambling, and violence. 3) Both parties presented expert witnesses, though neither expert personally examined Benjamin. The trial court granted the annulment but the Court of Appeals reversed.

Uploaded by

Robehgene Atud
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
117 views5 pages

Ting vs. Velez-Ting - Case Digests

1) Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez were married in 1975 and had six children together. 2) In 1993, after 18 years of marriage, Carmen filed for an annulment claiming Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated by his alcoholism, gambling, and violence. 3) Both parties presented expert witnesses, though neither expert personally examined Benjamin. The trial court granted the annulment but the Court of Appeals reversed.

Uploaded by

Robehgene Atud
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/ 5

Ting vs.

Velez-Ting
G.R. No. 166562
March 31, 2009
FACTS
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 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.
On January 9, 1998, the lower court rendered its decision declaring the marriage
between petitioner and respondent null and void. The RTC gave credence to Dr.
Onate’s findings and the admissions made by Benjamin in the course of his deposition,
and found him to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage.
On October 19, 2000, the petitioner appealed to the CA, reversing the trial court’s
decision.
ISSUE
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 realized
RULING
No. By the very nature of case involving the application of Article 36, it is logical and
understood to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding
the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root cause, juridical
antecedent, gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity. However, such
opinions, while highly advisable, are not conditions in granting petitions for declaration
of nullity of marriage. At best, courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not
indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact, if the totality
of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then
actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be
resorted to. The trial court, as in any other given case presented before it, must always
base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on
the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings.
But where, as in this case, the parties had the full opportunity to present professional
and expert opinion of psychiatrists tracing the root cause, gravity and incurability of a
party’s alleged psychological incapacity, then such expert opinion should be presented
and according, be weighed by the court in deciding whether to grant a petition for
nullity of marriage.
The petition for review on certiorari is granted.
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.
Benjamin Ting vs Carmen Velez-Ting
582 SCRA 694 – Civil Law – Family Code – Article 36; Psychological Incapacity
Personal Examination by Psychologist Not a Condition Sine Qua Non
Note: This reinforced the case of Te vs Te which relaxed the application of the Molina
Guidelines.
In 1972, Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez met each other in medical school. In 1975,
they married each other.
In 1980, Benjamin became a full-fledged doctor and he practiced at the Velez Hospital
(owned by Carmen’s family).
Benjamin and Carmen had six children during their marriage. But after 18 years of
marriage, Carmen went to court to have their marriage be declared void on the ground
that Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated.
She alleged that even before she married Benjamin, the latter was already a drunkard;
that Benjamin was a gambler, he was violent, and would rather spend on his expensive
hobby; that he rarely stayed home and even neglected his children and family
obligations.
Carmen presented an expert witness (Dr. Pureza Trinidad-Oñate) to prove Benjamin’s
psychological incapacity. However, Oñate merely based her findings on the deposition
submitted by Benjamin. Oñate was not able to personally examine Benjamin because at
that time, Benjamin was already working as an anesthesiologist in South Africa.
On his part, Benjamin opposed the petition. He also presented his own expert witness
(Dr. Renato Obra) to disprove Carmen’s allegations. Obra was not able to personally
examine Benjamin but he also evaluated the same deposition evaluated by Oñate. Also,
Benjamin submitted himself for evaluation to a South African doctor (Dr. A.J.L. Pentz)
and the transcript of said evaluation was submitted to Obra and the latter also
evaluated the same. Obra found Benjamin not to be psychologically incapacitated.
The trial court, and eventually the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of Carmen.
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Ting’s psychological incapacity was proven.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court found the evidence presented to be lacking in order to
support a finding of psychological incapacity on the part of Benjamin. Said the Supreme
Court:
we are not condoning Benjamin’s drinking and gambling problems, or his violent
outbursts against his wife. There is no valid excuse to justify such a behavior.
Benjamin must remember that he owes love, respect, and fidelity to his spouse as much
as the latter owes the same to him. Unfortunately, this court finds Carmen’s testimony,
as well as the totality of evidence presented by Carmen, to be too inadequate to declare
Benjamin psychologically unfit pursuant to Article 36.
Carmen failed to prove that such attitude by Benjamin is psychologically rooted so as to
make Benjamin unaware of his marital obligations. It should be remembered that the
presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage.
Anent the issue that Benjamin was not personally evaluated by the psychologists which
deviates from the Molina Guidelines, the Supreme Court ruled that as early as the case
of Te vs Te, the Molina Guidelines were already relaxed. Cases involving Article 36
must be tried on a case-to-case basis. Each 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. The Supreme Court however emphasized that the Molina case was not
abandoned, its application was merely relaxed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy