Barcelona vs. Court of Appeals

A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code states a cause of action when it alleges the complete facts showing psychological incapacity through physical manifestations, without need to allege expert opinion or its root cause, and an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping concerning a prior action that creates neither litis pendentia nor res judicata is not fatal under substantial compliance. Applied here, the detailed marital allegations sufficed to sustain trial on the merits, and the undisclosed prior dismissal without prejudice did not constitute forum shopping.

Tadeo R. Bengzon and Diana M. Barcelona were married spouses who established their residence in Quezon City and begot five children. Article 36 of the Family Code declares void a marriage contracted by a party psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at the time of celebration, even if manifest only afterwards. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94, now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, required every initiatory pleading to carry a sworn certification against forum shopping disclosing other actions involving the same issues and their status.

Tadeo R. Bengzon and Diana M. Barcelona were legally married at the Holy Cross Parish after a whirlwind courtship, as evidenced by the marriage contract attached to the pleadings. They established their residence in Quezon City, and the union begot five children: Ana Maria, born on 8 November 1964; Isabel, born on 28 October 1968; Ernesto Tadeo, born on 31 March 1970; Regina Rachelle, born on 7 March 1974; and Cristina Maria, born in February 1978.

According to the petition, frequent quarrels arose during the marriage due to varied upbringing, with Diana described as a disorganized housekeeper frequently out of the house at her sister's house or playing tennis the whole day. When the family suffered crises from several miscarriages and the sickness of a child, Diana allegedly withdrew to herself and eventually refused to speak to her husband. In November 1977, while five months pregnant with Cristina Maria and on the pretext of re-evaluating her feelings, Diana requested Tadeo to temporarily leave their conjugal dwelling to feel freedom from marital authority and influences, rejecting his offer to occupy another room, and Tadeo, to keep peace and safeguard the pregnancy, moved to a condominium in Greenhills.

Thereafter, complete estrangement resulted, with Tadeo waiving his right to the conjugal dwelling in Diana's favor through an extrajudicial dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, attached as Annex C, and the parties agreeing on custody and support of the children, with separation in fact subsisting to the present. The petition alleged Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the time of celebration to comply with essential obligations of marriage, that such incapacity subsisted to the present, and that it was conclusively found in psychological examination of their relationship, rendering the marriage void ab initio under Article 36 in accordance with Article 39.

On 29 March 1995, Tadeo filed the first Petition for Annulment of Marriage docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-23445 before Branch 87, then filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition on 9 May 1995 which was granted on 7 June 1995. On 21 July 1995, he filed anew a Petition for Annulment docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-24471 before Branch 106. Diana moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and violation of Circular No. 04-94 on forum shopping, which Tadeo opposed. The trial court first deferred resolution until hearing, then denied reconsideration and the dismissal after finding the allegations stated a violation of Tadeo's right and that the first case was no longer pending, having been dismissed without prejudice. The Court of Appeals acknowledged error in deferring action but found it cured by the denial, agreeing that a cause of action was stated and no forum shopping occurred.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action under Santos and Molina: Petitioner argued that the second petition failed to state a cause of action because it did not meet the guidelines on psychological incapacity, specifically failing to allege the root cause of the incapacity, its existence from celebration and permanence or incurability, its grave nature disabling compliance with essential obligations, and the particular marital obligations allegedly uncomplied with.
• Violation of Circular No. 04-94 on Forum Shopping: Petitioner maintained that respondent violated the certification requirement by failing to state the filing of the previous petition for annulment involving the same grounds and prayer for relief, as well as its termination and status, warranting dismissal of the second petition.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: Whether the allegations of the second petition for annulment of marriage sufficiently state a cause of action.
• Forum Shopping: Whether respondent Tadeo violated Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 in failing to state the filing of a previous petition for annulment of marriage, its termination and status.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: Yes. A cause of action was stated, the petition having alleged a right, a correlative obligation, and violation through ultimate facts of psychological incapacity under Article 36.
• Forum Shopping: No. No violation was committed, the omission being subject to substantial compliance where neither litis pendentia nor res judicata existed after dismissal without prejudice.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: A cause of action requires (1) a right in favor of plaintiff, (2) defendant's obligation to respect it, and (3) defendant's act or omission violating it, judged solely from the petition with facts hypothetically admitted on a motion to dismiss. The petition sought nullity under Article 36, alleging marriage, children, specific non-complied obligations such as disorganized housekeeping, prolonged absence, withdrawal and refusal to communicate, compelled separation since November 1977 and continuing estrangement, plus incapacity existing at celebration and subsisting thereafter as found on psychological examination. Ultimate facts, not evidentiary details, satisfy Section 1, Rule 8 of the old Rules of Court, and a complaint is maintained if its allegations can furnish a sufficient basis, dismissal requiring that relief does not exist rather than defective or uncertain statement. Under the new Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity, Section 2(d) requires only complete facts showing incapacity at celebration and physical manifestations indicative thereof, expressly providing that expert opinion need not be alleged, from which follows no need to allege root cause determinable only by neurological and behavioral experts and often still unknown to science despite evident manifestations.
• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping is determined by existence of litis pendentia elements or a final judgment amounting to res judicata in another case, while contents of the certification are governed by substantial compliance. The omission here was not fatal because the first petition had been withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice at respondent's instance before answer or responsive pleading, to keep peace with grown-up children, so no case was pending when the second was filed and no decision on the merits precluded relitigation. Circular No. 04-94, now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, must be liberally construed to promote orderly administration of justice and secure just, speedy and inexpensive disposition, not applied with absolute literalness to subvert substantial justice where the evils sought to be prevented are absent. The merits of nullity were expressly left for trial where evidence could be presented, marriage remaining an inviolable social institution.

• Cause of Action — Elements and Test of Sufficiency — A cause of action is an act or omission of defendant in violation of plaintiff's legal right, consisting of a right in plaintiff's favor, defendant's obligation to respect it, and defendant's violating act or omission. Sufficiency is determined solely from the allegations, with facts hypothetically admitted; dismissal requires showing that the claim for relief does not exist, not merely defective, ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain statement, and a complaint capable of furnishing a sufficient basis must be maintained for trial on the merits.
• Ultimate Facts vs. Evidentiary Facts — Pleadings must contain a plain, concise and direct statement of ultimate facts — the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon which the cause of action rests — omitting mere evidentiary details or particulars proving material elements. The second petition satisfied this by stating the marriage, the specific marital conduct constituting non-compliance, and incapacity at celebration continuing to the present.
• Psychological Incapacity — Pleading under Article 36 and the New Rules — Santos vs. Court of Appeals confined psychological incapacity to mental incapacity causing true incognizance of basic marital covenants under Article 68, limited to serious personality disorders showing utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning to marriage and existing at celebration, while Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina added procedural guidelines. Under Section 2(d) of the new Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity, a petition under Article 36 must specifically allege complete facts showing incapacity at celebration even if manifest only after, including physical manifestations if any, but expert opinion need not be alleged, hence root cause need not be pleaded.
• Forum Shopping — Litis Pendentia, Res Judicata and Substantial Compliance — Forum shopping exists where litis pendentia elements concur or a final judgment constitutes res judicata; absence of a certificate, belated filing, or signature by counsel violates the rule, but contents are subject to substantial compliance. Following Roxas vs. Court of Appeals and Maricalum Mining Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, omission of a prior filing and dismissal that creates neither litis pendentia nor res judicata, particularly a dismissal without prejudice before responsive pleading and not on the merits, does not merit dismissal where the evils sought to be prevented are absent.

• "A cause of action is an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the legal right of the plaintiff." — States the controlling definition used to test the petition, anchoring the three-element analysis of right, obligation, and violation.
• ""psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support." — Reproduces the canonical Santos vs. Court of Appeals formulation of psychological incapacity invoked to measure the petition's allegations.
• "If the allegations in a complaint can furnish a sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the defendants" — Articulates the liberal standard against dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, requiring trial where ultimate facts are pleaded.
• "xxx an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would not constitute res judicata and litis pendentia as in the case at bar, is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the said certificate are not present." — States the substantial-compliance rule from Roxas vs. Court of Appeals applied to excuse non-disclosure of the dismissed first petition.

• Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21 (1995) — Defining precedent giving life to psychological incapacity as serious mental incapacity existing at celebration; relied upon by petitioner to attack sufficiency but held satisfied under updated pleading standard.
• Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997 — Source of procedural guidelines for Article 36 cases; invoked by petitioner to require root cause, permanence and gravity, but supplemented by the new Rules dispensing with expert opinion in the petition.
• Dulay vs. Court of Appeals, 313 Phil. 8 (1995) — Authority for maintaining a complaint that furnishes a sufficient basis and for dismissing only where relief does not exist rather than where pleading is merely defective or uncertain; applied to sustain the petition.
• Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 430 (2001) — Controlling precedent that omission of a prior filing not constituting res judicata or litis pendentia is not fatal; directly followed to reject the forum-shopping attack.
• Maricalum Mining Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission — Cited for liberal interpretation of Circular No. 04-94 to secure just, speedy and inexpensive disposition; supports substantial compliance.
• Far East Bank and Trust Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135548, 29 September 2000; Relucio vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 138497, 16 January 2002; Sta. Clara Homeowners' Association vs. Gaston, G.R. No. 141961, 23 January 2002; MC Engineering, Inc. vs. NLRC, 412 Phil. 614 (2001); Pesca vs. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, 17 April 2001 — Cited on definition and elements of cause of action, hypothetical admission on motion to dismiss, substantial compliance for certification contents, and Molina guidelines, respectively.

• Article 36, Family Code — Declares void a marriage contracted by a party psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at celebration even if manifest only after solemnization; basis of the petition's right and prayer for nullity.
• Article 39, Family Code — Cited as the procedural authority for the action for declaration of absolute nullity pursued in the second petition.
• Article 68, Family Code — Enumerates mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity, and render help and support; used in Santos vs. Court of Appeals to define basic marital covenants affected by psychological incapacity.
• Section 1, Rule 8, Old Rules of Court — Requires every pleading to contain ultimate facts in methodical and logical form omitting evidentiary facts; standard met by the petition's statement of constitutive marital facts.
• Section 2(d), New Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages — Requires specific allegation of complete facts showing incapacity at celebration and physical manifestations if any, but provides expert opinion need not be alleged; applied retroactively to pending actions to excuse non-allegation of root cause.
• Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94, now Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires sworn certification of no other commenced action involving same issues, disclosure of pending or terminated similar actions and status, and undertaking to report later knowledge; construed under substantial compliance to sustain the second petition.
• Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution — Declares marriage an inviolable social institution protected by the State; invoked to emphasize that the ruling decides only pleading sufficiency and forum shopping, not the merits of nullity.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Vitug, J., and Ynares-Santiago, J., concur. Azcuna, J., on leave.