Long Absence of a Spouse Considered Psychological Incapacity According to the Supreme Court

-

 Long Absence of a Spouse Considered Psychological Incapacity According to the Supreme Court



A prolonged absence of a spouse from their home can be considered evidence of psychological incapacity, which can serve as grounds for declaring a marriage invalid.


In a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court annulled the marriage between Leonora and Alfredo after it was proven that Alfredo refused to provide financial support to his family and eventually abandoned Leonora and their children starting in 1994.


It was also proven that Alfredo had relationships with other women.


According to the Supreme Court, Article 68 of the Family Code states that spouses are obligated to live together, show love, respect, and fidelity to each other, and provide assistance and support.


Alfredo's infidelity, his long absence from home, and his failure to provide support to his wife and children demonstrate that he does not understand his obligations as a husband and father.


⚖️ GR. No. 242362

📸✍️ Courtesy of Supreme Court ph_fb page

Comments

  1. AnonymousJanuary 31, 2025 at 4:34 PM

    You can not justify his actions at all.

    You can not detach your self from “obligation” of marriage
    You have to come to your senses, and realize the marriage
    has no living end. Marriage is what you/me we make it.

    Never be apart of the division of a marriage

    You must also recall the Principals of that marriage.

    You only get one wife, divorce is not a division of the chain that was created

    Point is the state recognize nothing except money.
    Don’t marry someone who has a previous marriage.

    Some marital rights survive the grave.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SC applied the "economic dependency test" and ruled a Lazada delivery rider as a regular employee.

-
Image
  ANTECEDENTS   In February 2016, Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines,5 Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong (collectively, riders) were hired as riders by Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (Lazada). They were primarily tasked to pick up items from sellers and deliver them to Lazada's warehouse. Each of them signed an Independent Contractor Agreement (Contract) which states that they will be paid P1,200.00 per day as service fee. Respondents maintain that the Contract they signed with petitioners explicitly states that there is no employer-employee relationship between them. SC RULING   When the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms. SPONSORED   Bar Q&A (2024 Ed.) Law Questions Criminal Commercial Civil Political Labor Taxation Ethi...
Read more

𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭.

-
Image
  𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭. [G.R. No. 189255 June 17, 2015]  "Aside from the control test, the Supreme Court has also used the economic reality test in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties."  "Under this test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the [totality of circumstances] surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties." In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, we observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, in addition to the standard of right-of-control [...] to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker.  Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activi...
Read more

Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023

-
Image
  Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023 Q. No. 2 | Political Law “Sulu Second District Representative Alfonso died during the second year of his term. House Speaker Rodil then designated Sulu First District Representative Midas as the legislative caretaker for the remaining period of the term of Alfonso. Upon the prodding of majority of the constituents of the Sulu Second District who are invoking their right to representation, the members of the party of Alfonso filed a petition before the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Rodil to call for a special election in their district.   Will the petition prosper? Explain[.]” Suggested Answer: Republic Act No. 6645, December 28, 1987 , AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF FILING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES Section 1.  In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least eighteen (18) months or in the House of Representatives at least (1) year before the next regular election ...
Read more