[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’RAMBLINGS OF THE UNMARRIED | Know first hand’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY GORDON Q. GUILLERGAN
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=’custom’ color=”]
Sunday, March 26, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
“Suspecting and knowing are not the same.” ― Rick Riordan, The Lightning Thief
OUR KNOWLEDGE of things should be based on personal account. The need to have experienced, seen and felt the same is needed for one to believe one thing to be true.
But in life, some things may be concluded based on implications and things or knowledge is inferred.
Commonly we believe that in order for us to assail that one person has psychological disorder the need to be examined is needed to prove the same. Such common believe is also assailed for cases of annulment when the ground used is the psychological incapacity of the other spouse.
In a recent decided case of Valerio E. Kalaw vs. Ma. Elena Fernandez (G.R. No. 166357, 14 January 2015), the Supreme Court relaxes the rules on psychological incapacity as ground to annul marriages. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kalaw, “relax” the rules on petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity.
The Supreme Court noted clearly that the psychologist need not personally examine the incapacitated spouse.
Atty. Fred Pamaos in The Philippine e-Legal Forum noted that the usual objection raised against the testimony of the expert witness – especially when the services of the expert witness has been obtained by the petitioner-spouse and there is a conclusion that the respondent-spouse is psychologically incapacitated – is the inability of the psychologist to examine or interview the respondent spouse. In Kalaw, the Supreme Court reiterated the rule that “the lack of personal examination and interview of the person diagnosed with personality disorder…did not per se invalidate the findings of the experts.” There is no “relaxation” of the rules in this respect.
The opinion of the expert opinion should not be lightly brushed aside in the presence of the “totality of evidence” in the case. This is the reason why, in the cases we are handling, we require the client to present other witnesses to corroborate the client’s testimony on the facts which constitute the basis for the finding of the personality disorder and, ultimately, psychological incapacity. While clients initially complain about the presentation of other witnesses, we make it a point to carefully explain that this is needed to avoid an outright denial of the petition.
Therefore, to know something to be true a personal examination may not be required. A mere interpretation of one’s actions is enough to formulate judgment. BUT, not all implications tend to be true. So, the need to know it yourself is important this with relation to life in general as contrary to the case of Kalaw.
Many relationships are broken based on what one inferred of what the other’s standpoint without first taking a magnifying glass look of the situation. I, to a certain degree, is guilty of this. I constantly remind myself to ask if confuse, say, if it’s not ok and know before complaining. (gordon.qg@hotmail.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
