Legal Terms and Petitioner Vs Edward
G.R. 166738 August 14, 2009
Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua, petitioner vs Edward Rumbaua- respondent
Facts:
The petitioner, petition to declare for the nullification of marriage against the respondent for the ground of psychological incapacitated to exercise essential obligations as shown by the following circumstances, the respondent was reneged on the promise to live in one roof after finding a job, failed to extend financial support to the petitioner, blaming the petitioner for the death of the mother’s respondent, and presented himself single for all his transaction and pretended working in Davao although he was cohabiting with other woman in Novaliches City.
Issue:
Whether or not the psychological incapacity as basis for the declaration of nullification of marriage?
Ruling:
Article 36 of of its celebration the Family Code which provides that “a marriage contracted by any party who at the time of its celebration, was psychological incapacitated to comply with the essential marital Obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even is such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
Wherefore, in view of the considerations, we deny the petition and affirm the decision and resolution of the court of appeals.
G.R. 180764 January 19, 2010
Titus B Villanueva,-petitioner vs Emma M Rosqueta-Respondent
Fact:
The petitioner, ignored the injunction shows bad faith and intent spite respondent who remained in the eyes of the Law the Deputy Commissioner. His exclusion of her from the centennial anniversary memorabilia was not an honest mistake by any reckoning. Indeed, he withheld her salary and prevented her from assuming the duties of the position.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner be liable in damages to respondent for ignoring the preliminary injunction order the RTC issued in the quo warranto case?
Ruling:
Yes. The petitioner is liable to respondent for she suffered from severe anxiety on account of the speculation over her
Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua, petitioner vs Edward Rumbaua- respondent
Facts:
The petitioner, petition to declare for the nullification of marriage against the respondent for the ground of psychological incapacitated to exercise essential obligations as shown by the following circumstances, the respondent was reneged on the promise to live in one roof after finding a job, failed to extend financial support to the petitioner, blaming the petitioner for the death of the mother’s respondent, and presented himself single for all his transaction and pretended working in Davao although he was cohabiting with other woman in Novaliches City.
Issue:
Whether or not the psychological incapacity as basis for the declaration of nullification of marriage?
Ruling:
Article 36 of of its celebration the Family Code which provides that “a marriage contracted by any party who at the time of its celebration, was psychological incapacitated to comply with the essential marital Obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even is such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
Wherefore, in view of the considerations, we deny the petition and affirm the decision and resolution of the court of appeals.
G.R. 180764 January 19, 2010
Titus B Villanueva,-petitioner vs Emma M Rosqueta-Respondent
Fact:
The petitioner, ignored the injunction shows bad faith and intent spite respondent who remained in the eyes of the Law the Deputy Commissioner. His exclusion of her from the centennial anniversary memorabilia was not an honest mistake by any reckoning. Indeed, he withheld her salary and prevented her from assuming the duties of the position.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner be liable in damages to respondent for ignoring the preliminary injunction order the RTC issued in the quo warranto case?
Ruling:
Yes. The petitioner is liable to respondent for she suffered from severe anxiety on account of the speculation over her