LORNA PESCA, petitioner, vs. ZOSIMO PESCA, respondent.

G.R. No. 136921. April 17, 2001

VITUG, J.:

FACTS:
Lorna G. Pesca and Zosimo A. Pesca were married on March 3, 1975. They union begot
four children.
In 1988, Lorna alleged that Zosimo is an emotionally immature and irresponsible husband.
He was cruel, violent and a habitual drinker. When cautioned to stop or, to at least, minimize his
drinking, he would beat, slap and kick Lorna. At one time, he chased her with a loaded shotgun
and threatened to kill her in the presence of the children. The children were not spared from
physical violence as well.
On November 19, 1992, Lorna and her children left the conjugal abode to live in the house
of her sister as they could no longer bear his violent ways. Two months later, she decided to
forgive him and returned home to give him a chance to change. But, to her dismay, matters even
became worse.
After submitting herself to medical examination, Lorna then filed a complaint with the
barangay authorities, and a case was filed against Zosimo for slight physical injuries. Zosimo
was convicted by the MTC of Caloocan City and sentenced him to eleven days of imprisonment.
This time, Lorna and her children left the conjugal home for good.
She sued him before the RTC for the declaration of nullity of their marriage invoking
psychological incapacity. On 11 January 1995, Zosimo belatedly filed an answer and denied the
allegation that he was psychologically incapacitated.
On 15 November 1995, the trial court declared the marriage to be null and void ab initio on
the basis of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent.
The CA reversed the decision of RTC and declared the marriage valid and subsisting. CA
said that the appellee has not established the appellant’s psychological incapacity.
Petitioner pleads to reverse the decision of the CA on the thesis that the doctrine enunciated
in the Santos case as well as the guidelines set out in the Molina case should have no retroactive
application and, on the assumption that the Molina ruling could be applied retroactively, the
guidelines therein outlined should be taken to be merely advisory and not mandatory in nature.
ISSUE: W/N the guidelines for psychological incapacity in the case of Republic vs CA &
Molina should be taken in consideration in deciding in this case.

HELD:
 Yes. In the Molina case, guidelines were laid down by the SC before a case would fall under
the category of psychological incapacity to declare a marriage null and void. This decision has
force and effect of a law. These guidelines are mandatory in nature. Petition denied.

The "doctrine of stare decisis," ordained in Article 8 of the Civil Code, expresses that
judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal maxim legis interpretado legis vim obtinet that the
interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law.