SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246016. June 17, 2019.]
RUTH TOBES SAGALES, petitioner, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND REGIE SAGALES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated17 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246016 (Ruth Tobes Sagales v. Republic of the Philippines and Regie Sagales)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the August 7, 2018 Decision 2 and the March 6, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104761 for failure of petitioner Ruth Tobes Sagales (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in concluding that private respondent Regie Sagales (respondent) was not psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations.
As correctly ruled by the CA, little weight can be given to the Psychological Evaluation Report 4 prepared by Dr. Jennifer F. Ebio as it was based solely on one-sided information. 5 Such report, which was based more or less on personal accounts of petitioner alone, lacks an in-depth assessment of the parties as to warrant a conclusion that respondent actually suffered from psychological incapacity. 6 In any event, psychological reports are not per se indispensable in these cases, and it is still the totality of evidence presented which should sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. 7 Here, both the lower court and the CA concurred that the evidence presented by petitioner were insufficient to support her allegations. 8 Settled is the rule that when the factual findings of the lower courts are identical in most respects, they are entitled to respect and finality upon this Court, 9 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-33.
2.Id. at 38-48. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3.Id. at 50.
4.Id. at 53-60.
5. See id. at 44.
6. See Espina-Dan v. Dan, G.R. No. 209031, April 16, 2018. See also rollo, pp. 44-45.
7. See Ting v. Velez-Ting, 601 Phil. 676, 691 (2009).
8. See rollo, pp. 45-46.
9. See Espina-Dan v. Dan, supra note 6.