REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 123
MANDALUYONG CITY

JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus-                                  CIVIL CASE NO. 16474

FOR: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage (Art. 36, Family Code)

MARIA DELA CRUZ.

              Respondent.

x---------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

Respondent, MARIA DELA CRUZ, through counsel, unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully submits the foregoing Memorandum against this petition,
thus:

NATURE OF THE CASE/PETITION

1. Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines in relation to Section 2
of AM 02-11-10-SC otherwise known as the “Proposed Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages”
initiated by the Petitioner on the Ground of respondent’s Psychological Incapacity
to comply with the essential marital obligations.

THE PARTIES

2. Petitioner, JUAN DELA CRUZ, is 34 years of age, married, working

as a Systems Consultant Associate for INFOR with office address at 9th Floor Net
Square Bldg., Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City, with residence address at 281
Interior 17-G, A. Luna St., Barangay Burol, Mandaluyong City.

3. Respondent, MARIA DELACRUZ, is 31 years old, female, Roman

Catholic, born on January 17, 1983 in Pasig City. She is a BS Computer Science
graduate, and is working as a call center agent today, with address of Blk. 13 Lot
24 Boppard St., Mercedes Executive Village, Pasig City.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE

4. Petitioner filed the petition on 17 April 2015 where he prayed for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent pursuant to Article 36 of the
Family Code of the Philippines as supported by the psychological report of Ms.
Neri Tayag.

5.     On 2 May 2015, Respondent received a copy of the summons dated

30 April 2015 requiring her to file her Answer to the Petition within 15 days from
receipt thereof.

6.    On 18 May 2015, undersigned counsels filed an Entry of Appearance

with Motion for Extension of File to Answer to the Petition dated 17 April 2015.
This motion was granted in an Order dated 21 May 2015, a copy of which was
received on 9 June 2015.

4.     On 28 May 2015, Respondent filed her Answer.

5.     Issues having been joined the Honorable Court issued an Order dated
01 June 2015 setting the case for Preliminary Conference on 23 June 2015 at 10:00
o’clock in the morning.

6.     On 18 June 2018, Petitioner received a copy of Petitioner’s reply.

7.     Respondent file her Pre-Trial Brief on 26 June 2015 and received a
copy of Petitioner’s Pre-Trial Brief on 01 July 2015.

8.    On 31 July 2015, the Respondent received a Notice of Pre-Trial

Conference setting the same on 08 September 2015 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

9.     On 23 September 2015, Respondent received a copy of the Pre-Trial

Order.
 10. On 21 November 2015, Respondent received a copy Order dated 27
October 2015 noting the Case Study Report dated 21 October 2015 filed by Court
Social Welfare Officer II, in compliance with the Order dated 01 June 2015.

11. The reception of evidence ensued and Petitioner presented the

testimonies of Petitioner Juan Dela Cruz, his nephew, Richard Bravo, his niece,
Lloyd Grande, and Ms. Neri Tayag.

12. On 30 September 2016, Petitioner filed his Formal Offer of Evidence.

Respondent filed her Comments/Opposition thereto on 05 October 2016.
13. On 12 December 2016, Respondent received a copy of the
Comment/Manifestation dated 21 November 2016 filed by Senior Assistant City
Prosecutor, Christopher Ortiz. A ruling was then issued by the Honorable Court on
the Formal Offer of Evidence of Petitioner.

14. On 13 December 2016, Respondent, through counsel, manifested that

she will no longer be presenting any testimonial evidence and already adopted the
marriage certificate of the parties and the birth certificate of their son, Louis Dela
Cruz, as comment exhibits which were marked as Exhibits “1” and “2” for the
Respondent.

15. The parties submitted a copy of the Custody and Visitation Agreement
signed by them on different dates to the Honorable Court for its consideration and
approval.

16. Upon motion, the parties were required to submit their respective
Memoranda within a period of 30 days therefrom and furnishing a copy the Office
of the City Prosecutor through Prosecutor Ortiz, and the Office of the Solicitor
General.

17. Hence, the timeliness of this Memorandum.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether or not the totality of evidence proves that the Respondent is

psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital
obligations as would justify the nullification of their marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code.

DISCUSSION
 18. In Santos v. CA, the Supreme Court has ruled that psychological
incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.

The incapacity must be grave or serious

such that the party would be incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required
in marriage.

19. The respondent contends that the psychological report allegedly

proving the gravity of her psychological incapacity has no basis because she was
neither tested nor interviewed for the same.

20. The psychological report of Ms. Neri Tayag which the petitioner
presented concluded that the “Respondent’s disorders persist throughout her life
and grew severe, grave and chronic that they are already seen to be on an incurable
state…” Yet Ms. Tayag also admitted that she has not personally administered any
test on the respondent because the respondent “failed to come to [Ms.Tayag’s]
clinic.”

21. Without testing and interviewing the Respondent, Ms. Tayag issued
“her report containing the results and [her] findings on the tests administered to
petitioner.”

The psychological incapacity must

be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage.

22. The respondent contends that the psychological report allegedly

proving the juridical antecedence of her psychological incapacity has no basis
because she was neither tested nor interviewed for the same.

23. The psychological report presented by Ms. Neri Tayag which the
petitioner presented concluded that “[the conditions of the respondent] are also
characterized by juridical antecedent, as her disorders already exist even before she
met Petitioner and contracted marriage with him.”

24. The same report enumerated the “Assessment Procedures Utilized” by

Ms. Tayag which include a) interview and administration of battery of
psychological test with Petitioner on March 1, 2015 and March 2, 2015; b) letter of
invitation sent to Respondent’s given address; c) A corroborative interview made
with Petitioner’s nephew; and d) Home visit conducted at the given address.”

25. On both house visits Ms. Tayag was not able to talk to the
Respondent. When Ms. Tayag tried to get answers from the Respondent’s mother,
the same also refused. Thus, the following conclusions, among others, reached by
Ms. Tayag to blostre her claim of juridical antecedence do not have basis in fact:

“Respondent’s parents failed to guide and discipline Respondent in an

effective way, and they were more on the lenient and tolerant side.
They even failed to be effective leaders in the household and it only
manifest [sic] how the expected figure of authority in the home was
not able to help raising the children to have matured and disciplined
outlook in life.” (emphasis supplied)

26. Without talking to the Respondent and from people connected to her
past, Ms. Tayag could not have basis for concluding that the condition of the
Respondent already existed before marriage.

The psychological incapacity must be

incurable, or even if it were otherwise,
the cure would be beyond the means of
the party involved.

27. The respondent contends that the psychological report allegedly

proving the incurability of her psychological incapacity has no basis because she
was neither tested nor interviewed for the same.

28. The psychological report presented by Ms. Neri Tayag concluded that
the respondent’s condition as “... permanent, incurable and beyond repair despite
any form of psychotherapeutic interventions as she will never understand the need
for her to undergo any psychological intervention.” She reiterated this in her
judicial affidavit when she said that “[the Respondent] would always be in denial
of her own psychological incapacity and therefore she would likewise resist any
treatment or therapy.”

29. The denial of psychological incapacity which would result in the

resistance of any treatment or therapy cannot be validly claimed because the
Respondent was neither interviewed nor given any psychological tests.
Totality of evidence presented
to prove psychological incapacity

30. In Mallilin v. Jamesolamin, the Supreme Court refused to grant the

nullity of marriage on the ground that the totality of evidence failed to establish the
psychological incapacity of the respondent.

31. The testimony of the petitioner fails to overcome the burden of proof
to show that the respondent has psychological incapacity that renders her unable to
fulfill her marital obligations.

32. Likewise, the testimonies of his nephew (Richard Bravo) and niece
(Lloyd Grande) are mere hearsays, because both have no personal knowledge. On
one hand, Richard was even “clueless as to what they are fighting about.” On the
other hand, Lloyd merely assumed that the respondent was having an affair upon
seeing a Facebook photo showing the latter with another man.

33. The root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity of the

respondent was not medically or clinically identified. Her failure or refusal to
perform her duties as a wife and a mother is not equivalent to psychological
incapacity. In Republic v. Encelan, the Court reiterates that psychological
incapacity means “downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
assume marital obligations, not merely refusal, neglect, or difficulty”. In the same
case, the Court has said that neither sexual infidelity nor abandonment tantamounts
to psychological incapacity.

34. The psychological report was insufficient to prove the incapacity of

respondent. It was indicated therein that the respondent was not interviewed or
subjected to psychological examinations. The Court in Lim v. Lim, has said that the
probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his
theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to the courts in
showing the facts that serve as basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which
the logic of his conclusion is founded.

35. In Republic v. Tanyag-San Jose, the Court has ruled that a doctor’s
conclusion is hearsay, “unscientific and unreliable,” where the assessment of the
party sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated was based merely on the
information communicated to the doctor by the spouse. This is what has happened
also in this case.
 PRAYER

     ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby prayed that judgement be rendered against

the Petitioner and in favor of the Respondent by:

I. REJECTING the petition for the declaration of the nullity of marriage

between the parties based on Article 36 of the Family Code for having no
basis in fact and in law.

Mandaluyong CIty, Philippines, 19 November 2018.

   PEDRO REYES
                                                               Counsel for the Plaintiff
          PTR No. 12345678:1-01-12:B.C.
                 IBP No. 123456:1-01-12:B.C.
            Roll No. 12345:5-10-00: Manila
   MCLE No. 12345:5-10-00: Manila
                                                                                                    Unit 5, Intra Building,
                                                                               General Luna St. cor. Muralla St.,
                                                                                                        Intramuros, Manila