Flirting, Promiscuity and Nymphomania not ground for declaration of psychological incapacity

September 1, 2008

It is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution, and marriage as the foundation of the family. The Constitution decrees marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties.  Not even allegation of sexual deviance of a spouse such as flirting, promiscuity and nymphomania cannot be grounds for declaration of nullity of marriage when not supported by facts.  This was the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Navales vs Navales, G.R. No. 167523, June 27, 2008.

Facts:  

Reynaldo married Nilad who was a single mother and known as waitress in a local bar.  The first year of marriage of the couple was peaceful but problems between them arose when Nilda worked as aerobics instructor in a gym where Nilda’s flirtatiousness and promiscuity recurred.  According to Reynaldo, Nilda wore tight-fitting outfits, allowed male clients to touch her body, and introduced herself as single. Reynaldo received phone calls from different men looking for Nilda. There was also a time when Nilda chose to ride with another man instead of Reynaldo; and another when Nilda went home late, riding in the car of the man who kissed her. Reynaldo also claims that Nilda refused to have a child with him, as it would destroy her figure.  Due to these, Reynaldo left Nilda and never reconciled with her again.

On August 30, 1999, Reynaldo filed a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage and Damages before the RTC, Toledo City, Cebu, docketed as Civil Case No. T-799 claiming that his marriage with Nilda did not cure Nilda’s flirtatiousness and sexual promiscuity, and that her behavior indicates her lack of understanding and appreciation of the meaning of marriage, rendering the same void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Among the evidence Reynaldo presented are the following:

Telephone directories showing that Nilda used her maiden name “Bacon” instead of “Navales”;

 ^Josefino Ramos, who testified that he was with Reynaldo when Reynaldo first met Nilda at the bar called “Appetizer,” and that he (Ramos) himself was attracted to Nilda since she was sexy, beautiful, and jolly to talk with.

Violeta Abales, his cousin, who testified that she was a vendor at the YMCA where Nilda worked and was known by her maiden name; that she knows Nilda is sexy and wears tight fitting clothes; that her companions are mostly males and she flirts with them; and that there was one time that Reynaldo fetched Nilda at YMCA but Nilda went with another man, which angered Reynaldo.

Leticia Vatanagul, a Clinical Psychologist and Social Worker who drafted a Psychological Assessment of Marriage dated March 28, 2001. In said Assessment, Vatanagul concluded that Nilda is a nymphomaniac, who has a borderline personality, a social deviant, an alcoholic, and suffering from anti-social personality disorder, among others, which illnesses are incurable and are the causes of Nilda’s psychological incapacity to perform her marital role as wife to Reynaldo.

Issue:

Whether nymphomania, promiscuity and flirting are grounds for declaration of nullity of marriage under psychological incapacity?

(more…)

Aradais vs Comelec, Election Law Digest

G.R. No.  157863.  April 28, 2004

HADJA NIDA B. ARADAIS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ABDUSALI ASMADUN, respondents.CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

Facts:
During the election of May 14, 2001, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed the petitioner and respondent as both Municipal Mayors of Lugus, Sulu.

Helen G. Aguila-Flores, Regional Election Director of Region IX, Zamboanga City, informed the public that the COMELEC “recognize[d] only one proclamation,” that of respondent, and petitioner’s proclamation was without any legal effect.  This prompted petitioner to file before the COMELEC a petition for the annulment of respondent’s proclamation with prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.

The respondent also filed his opposition to the petition for annulment of his proclamation alleging that the canvassing of votes was completed in the morning of May 17, 2001 in an orderly and peaceful manner after which he was proclaimed as mayor-elect; and that the proclamation of petitioner proceeded from illegal acts of terrorism, intimidation and threats against COC Chairman Bakri and Secretary Dammang.

On July 12, 2001, the COMELEC, by Resolution No. 01-1029, created an ad hoc Committee composed of Atty. Ferdinand T. Rafanan, Atty. Juanito O. Icaro and Atty. Jovencio G. Balanguit to look into cases of double proclamations including the case at bar.

The Ad Hoc Committee heard the testimonies of the member of BOC.  By Bakri’s testimony, the first COC declaring respondent as the winner was the legitimate one, he (Bakri) having been merely forced to sign the second COC.  Dammang, on the other hand, testified that she only signed the first COC proclaiming respondent, and added that when they were to sign said COC, BOC member Uddoh left the proceedings on account of stomach ache and never returned.

In its report, the Ad Hoc Committee made the following recommendations, quoted verbatim:

1.        The affirmation of the proclamation of ABSULSALI K. ASMADUM, as mayor-elect, and the other officials as Sangguniang Bayan-elect of the municipality of Lugus, Province of Sulu, as appearing in C.E.F. No. 25 which the Committee finds to be genuine, valid and lawful;

2.        The nullification of the improvised C.E.F. No. 25 submitted to the ERSD bearing Hadja Nida Aradais as the winning mayoralty candidate of Lugus, Sulu which the Committee finds to be spurious and falsified; and

Due to the adverse decision, petitioner contends that the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its power and discretion when it delegated its constitutional duty to “hear and decide” pre-proclamation cases to a mere ad hoc committee.  She argues that the COMELEC should have ordered a recanvass and retabulation of the votes, instead of limiting itself to the findings of the Ad Hoc Committee which did not actually resolve the conflicting claims of the parties.

Issue:

Whether COMELEC En Back gravely abused its power and discreton when it delagated its constitutional duty to hear and decide pre-proclamation cases to a mere ad hoc committee?

(more…)

Borja vs Comelec, Election Law Digest

G.R. No. 133495.  September 3, 1998

BENJAMIN U. BORJA, JR., petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSE T. CAPCO, JR., respondents. MENDOZA, J.

Facts:

Private respondent Jose T. Capco, Jr. was elected vice-mayor of Pateros on January 18, 1988 for a term ending June 30, 1992.  On September 2, 1989, he became mayor, by operation of law, upon the death of the incumbent, Cesar Borja.  For the next two succeeding elections in 1992 and 1995, he was again re-elected as Mayor. 

On March 27, 1998, private respondent Capco filed a certificate of candidacy for mayor of Pateros relative to the May 11, 1998 elections.  Petitioner Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., who was also a candidate for mayor, sought Capco’s disqualification on the theory  that the latter would have already served as mayor for three consecutive terms by June 30, 1998 and would therefore be ineligible to serve for another term after that.

The Second Division of the Commission on Elections ruled in favor of petitioner and declared private respondent Capco disqualified from running for reelection as mayor of Pateros but in the motion for reconsideration, majority overturned the original decision. 

Issue:

Whether Capco has served for three consecutive terms as Mayor?

(more…)