Decision

Bersamin v. Republic

G.R. No. 166357 · 2015-01-14 · LawPhil

<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/166357.pdf> [Per J. Bersamin, Special First Division]. [21](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt21) Id. at 6-7.…

En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt10) 335 Phil. 664 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt11) Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 36 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt12) Id., citing Salita v. Magtolis, 303 Phil. 106 (1994) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division]. See also Republicv. Court of Appeals and Molina, 335 Phil. 664, 677 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt13) New Code of Canon Law, Canon 1095 provides: Canon 1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage: 1. who is lack of sufficient use of reason.

2. who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties, to be given and accepted mutually; 3. who for causes of psychological nature are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt14) Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 37 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt15)Id. at 39.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt16) Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, 335 Phil. 664, 676-680 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt17) Ngo-Te v. Yu-Te, 598 Phil. 666, 696 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt18) 598 Phil. 666 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt19) Id. at 695-696. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt20) G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/166357.pdf> [Per J. Bersamin, Special First Division].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt21) Id. at 6-7. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt22) The other four are Azcueta v. Republic, 606 Phil. 177 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]; Halili v. Santos-Halili, 607 Phil. 1 (2009) [Per J. Corona, Special First Division); Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes, 642 Phil. 602 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division]; and Aurelio v. Aurelio, 665Phil.

693 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt23) CONST., art. XV, sec.

2 provides: Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt24) See J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in Mallilin v. Jamesolamin, G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/192718 leonen.pdf> 13 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt25) CONST., art. XV, sec. 3(1).

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt26) See Ngo-Te v. Yu-Te, 598 Phil. 666, 698 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt27) J. Romero, Concurring Opinion in Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 43 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt28) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt29) CONST., art. II, sec. 6 provides: Section 6.

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt30) An Act to Establish Divorce (1917). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt31) Act No. 2710, sec. 1 provides: SECTION 1.

A petition for divorce can only be filed for adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband, committed in any of the forms described in article four hundred and thirty-seven of the Penal Code. See Valdez v. Tuason, 40 Phil. 943, 948 (1920) [Per J. Street, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt32) Otherwise known as "The New Divorce Law."

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt33) Baptista v. Castañeda, 76 Phil. 461, 462 (1946) [Per J. Ozaeta, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt34) Id. at 462-463.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt35) CONST., art. XV, sec. 1 provides: Section 1.

The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt36) CONST., art.

XV, sec. 2 provides: Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt37) CONST., art. II, sec. 12 provides: Section 12.

The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt38) Carlos H. Conde, Philippines Stands All but Alone in Banning Divorce, THE NEW YORK TIMES, June 17, 2011 <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/asia/18iht-philippines18.html> (visited November 14, 2016). Pres. Decree No. 1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, allows divorce but only for Filipino Muslims.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#rnt39) CONST., art. II, sec. 11 provides that "[t]he State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights."

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation [![](https://lawphil.net/images/back.gif)](javascript:history.back\(1\)) [![](https://lawphil.net/images/top.gif)](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/nov2016/gr203284so2016.html#top) ![](https://lawphil.net/imgs/bckgnds/010.gif)