SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235035. October 16, 2019.]
NEAL JOSE O. GONZALES, petitioner, vs.MICHELLE ANNE * R. BALUYUT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 October 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235035 — Neal Jose O. Gonzales, petitioner, versus Michelle Anne R. Baluyut, respondent.
The present Motion for Reconsideration1 (motion) lacks merit. A scrutiny of the motion reveals that petitioner Neal Jose O. Gonzales (petitioner) failed to advance any substantial argument that would warrant a reversal of this Court's Resolution 2 dated June 6, 2018.
In the present motion, petitioner insists that the evidence on record not only shows that his psychological incapacity exists, but also shows that it is of such nature as to merit the nullification of his marriage with respondent. As basis, petitioner relies on the Court's ruling in Kalaw v. Fernandez3(Kalaw), to the effect that the medical examination of the non-afflicted spouse is not necessary when the totality of the evidence presented shows that the psychological incapacity of the other in fact exists. 4 Such reliance is misplaced. CAacTH
In Kalaw, the Court declared the marriage of the parties' therein void based on: (i) the testimony of Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy; (ii) the testimony of court social worker Jocelyn V. Arre who conducted a case study on the parties and their minor children; (iii) the testimony of the parties' eldest child; and (iv) the testimony and report of psychologist Dr. Cristina Gates whose findings were based on interviews conducted not only with petitioner therein, his sister, and his youngest son.
Here, the only pieces of evidence on record are the testimonies of petitioner and his friend Virgilio Vizcarra (Virgilio), as well as that of Dr. Jay Madelon Castillo-Carcereny (Dr. Carcereny). It is apparent that the testimonies of petitioner and Virgilio cannot be taken to corroborate the findings of Dr. Carcereny who based his findings precisely on the former's statements. Hence, the circumstances attendant in this Petition cannot be likened to those in Kalaw. To be sure, the "totality of evidence" rule in Kalaw cannot be stretched to apply to cases where, as here, no other evidence on exists on record to corroborate the findings arising from the medical examination subject of the dispute.
Considering that a review under Rule 45 is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, it was incumbent upon petitioner to show his entitlement thereto. Failing to do so, the present motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's Resolution denying the same must likewise be denied. cEaSHC
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official business."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also spelled as "Ann" in other parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 405-423.
2.Id. at 403-404.
3. 750 Phil. 482 (2015).
4. See id. at 503.