This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, we have also ruled in past decisions that to make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based on the information fed by only one side, similar to what we have pointed out in the case at bar, is, to the Court's mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.[24] | |||||
|
2011-01-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will.[51] This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage; (b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring; and (c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality.[52] It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness.[53] | |||||
|
2010-02-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Consequently, Gates' report and testimony were hearsay evidence since she had no personal knowledge of the alleged facts she was testifying on.[25] Gates' testimony should have thus been dismissed for being unscientific and unreliable.[26] | |||||