LEOUEL SANTOS, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS .
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 112019
- Promulgated: 1995-01-04
- Ponente: Vitug, J.
Doctrine
Although not determinative, Canon Law jurisprudence at the time of the Family Code's enactment may serve as an aid in interpreting Article 36.
The history and drafting of Canon 1095 indicate the legislator intended to broaden rules on incapacity to contract marriage, a point the Court considered in construing the codal provision.
Facts
Article 36 of the Family Code (as amended by E.O. No. 227 dated 17 July 1987) declares that a marriage contracted by a party psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations is void, even if the incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization.
The provision on psychological incapacity is described as highly controversial among provisions introduced by the Family Code.
The Court considered jurisprudence under Canon Law as potentially useful, though not dispositive, in interpreting the codal provision.
The Court cited authorities on the drafting and scope of Canon 1095, noting the history indicates an intention to broaden the rule regarding capacity to contract marriage.
Issues
Whether Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity) renders a marriage void when a party was psychologically incapacitated at the time of celebration.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED.
Several justices concurred with the judgment as indicated.