Annulment.docx

Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC Supreme Court of the Philippines 4 March 2003 Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila En Banc

Resolution Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court submitting for this Court’s consideration and approval the Proposed Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same. The Rule shall take effect on March 15, 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than March 7, 2003. March 4, 2003. Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur. Vitug, J., it is my understanding that neither Santos nor Molina has been made irrelevant, let alone necessarily overturned by the new rules.

Panganiban, J., please see Dissenting Opinion on Rule relating to psychological incapacity. Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave. Corona, J., on official leave.

Re: Proposed Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages SECTION 1. Scope.— This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily. SECTION 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.— (a) Who may file.— A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. (n) (b) Where to file.— The petition shall be filed in the Family Court. (c) Imprescriptibility of action or defense.— An action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage shall not prescribe. (d) What to allege.— A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration.

The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.

SECTION 3. Petition for annulment of voidable marriages.— (a) Who may file.— The following persons may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriage based on any of the grounds under Article 45 of the Family Code and within the period herein indicated: (1) The contracting party whose parent, or guardian, or person exercising substitute parental authority did not give his or her consent, within five years after attaining the age of twenty-one unless, after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabitated with the other as husband or wife; or the parent, guardian or person having legal charge of the contracting party, at any time before such party has reached the age of twentyone; (2) The sane spouse who had no knowledge of the other’s insanity; or by any relative, guardian, or person having legal charge of the insane, at any time before the death of either party; or by the insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity, provided that the petitioner, after coming to reason, has not freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife; (3) The injured party whose consent was obtained by fraud, within five years after the discovery of the fraud, provided that said party, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, has not freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife; (4) The injured party whose consent was obtained by force, intimidation, or undue influence, within five years from the time the force, intimidation, or undue influence disappeared or ceased, provided that the force, intimidation, or undue influence having disappeared or ceased, said party has not thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife; (5) The injured party where the other spouse is physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable, within five years after the celebration of marriage; and (6) The injured party where the other party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable, within five years after the celebration of marriage.

(b) Where to file.— The petition shall be filed in the Family Court.

SECTION 4. Venue.— The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing, or in the case of a non-resident respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner. SECTION 5. Contents and form of petition.— (1) The petition shall allege the complete facts constituting the cause of action. (2) It shall state the names and ages of the common children of the parties and specify the regime governing their property relations, as well as the properties involved. If there is no adequate provision in a written agreement between the parties, the petitioner may apply for a provisional order for spousal support, custody and support of common children, visitation rights, administration of community or conjugal property, and other matters similarly requiring urgent action. (3) It must be verified and accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. The verification and certification must be signed personally by the petitioner. No petition may be filed solely by counsel or through an attorney-in-fact. If the petitioner is in a foreign country, the verification and certification against forum shopping shall be authenticated by the duly authorized officer of the Philippine embassy or legation, consul general, consul or vice-consul or consular agent in said country. (4) It shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, within five days from the date of its filing and submit to the court proof of such service within the same period.

Failure to comply with any of the preceding requirements may be a ground for immediate dismissal of the petition. SECTION 6. Summons.— The service of summons shall be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and by the following rules:

(1) Where the respondent cannot be located at his given address or his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service of summons may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and in such places as the court may order. In addition, a copy of the summons shall be served on the respondent at his last known address by registered mail or any other means the court may deem sufficient. (2) The summons to be published shall be contained in an order of the court with the following data: (a) title of the case; (b) docket number; (c) nature of the petition; (d) principal grounds of the petition and the reliefs prayed for; and (e) a directive for the respondent to answer within thirty days from the last issue of publication.

SECTION 7. Motion to dismiss.— No motion to dismiss the petition shall be allowed except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties; provided, however, that any other ground that might warrant a dismissal of the case may be raised as an affirmative defense in an answer. SECTION 8. Answer.— (1) The respondent shall file his answer within fifteen days from service of summons, or within thirty days from the last issue of publication in case of service of summons by publication. The answer must be verified by the respondent himself and not by counsel or attorney-in-fact. (2) If the respondent fails to file an answer, the court shall not declare him or her in default. (3) Where no answer is filed or if the answer does not tender an issue, the court shall order the public prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties.

SECTION 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor.— (1) Within one month after receipt of the court order mentioned in paragraph (3) of Section 8 above, the public prosecutor shall submit a report to the court stating whether the parties are in collusion and serve copies thereof on the parties and their respective counsels, if any.

(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists, he shall state the basis thereof in his report. The parties shall file their respective comments on the finding of collusion within ten days from receipt of a copy of the report. The court shall set the report for hearing and if convinced that the parties are in collusion, it shall dismiss the petition. (3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the court shall set the case for pre-trial. It shall be the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-trial.

SECTION 10. Social worker.— The court may require a social worker to conduct a case study and submit the corresponding report at least three days before the pre-trial. The court may also require a case study at any stage of the case whenever necessary. SECTION 11. Pre-trial.— (1) Pre-trial mandatory.— A pre-trial is mandatory. On motion or motu proprio, the court shall set the pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed, or upon receipt of the report of the public prosecutor that no collusion exists between the parties. (2) Notice of pre-trial.— (a) The notice of pre-trial shall contain: (1) the date of pre-trial conference; and (2) an order directing the parties to file and serve their respective pre-trial briefs in such manner as shall ensure the receipt thereof by the adverse party at least three days before the date of pre-trial.

(b) The notice shall be served separately on the parties and their respective counsels as well as on the public prosecutor. It shall be their duty to appear personally at the pretrial. (c) Notice of pre-trial shall be sent to the respondent even if he fails to file an answer. In case of summons by publication and the respondent failed to file his answer, notice of pre-trial shall be sent to respondent at his last known address.

SECTION 12. Contents of pre-trial brief.— The pre-trial brief shall contain the following:

(a) A statement of the willingness of the parties to enter into agreements as may be allowed by law, indicating the desired terms thereof; (b) A concise statement of their respective claims together with the applicable laws and authorities; (c) Admitted facts and proposed stipulations of facts, as well as the disputed factual and legal issues; (d) All the evidence to be presented, including expert opinion, if any, briefly stating or describing the nature and purpose thereof; (e) The number and names of the witnesses and their respective affidavits; and (f) Such other matters as the court may require.

Failure to file the pre-trial brief or to comply with its required contents shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial under the succeeding paragraphs. SECTION 13. Effect of failure to appear at the pre-trial.— (a) If the petitioner fails to appear personally, the case shall be dismissed unless his counsel or a duly authorized representative appears in court and proves a valid excuse for the non-appearance of the petitioner. (b) If the respondent has filed his answer but fails to appear, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial and require the public prosecutor to investigate the non-appearance of the respondent and submit within fifteen days thereafter a report to the court stating whether his non-appearance is due to any collusion between the parties. If there is no collusion, the court shall require the public prosecutor to intervene for the State during the trial on the merits to prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence.

SECTION 14. Pre-trial conference.— At the pre-trial conference, the court: (a) May refer the issues to a mediator who shall assist the parties in reaching an agreement on matters not prohibited by law.

The mediator shall render a report within one month from referral which, for good reasons, the court may extend for a period not exceeding one month. (b) In case mediation is not availed of or where it fails, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial conference, on which occasion it shall consider the advisability of receiving expert testimony and such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the petition.

SECTION 15. Pre-trial order.— (a) The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon termination of the pre-trial, the court shall issue a pre-trial order which shall recite in detail the matters taken up in the conference, the action taken thereon, the amendments allowed on the pleadings, and, except as to the ground of declaration of nullity or annulment, the agreements or admissions made by the parties on any of the matters considered, including any provisional order that may be necessary or agreed upon by the parties. (b) Should the action proceed to trial, the order shall contain a recital of the following: (1) Facts undisputed, admitted, and those which need not be proved subject to Section 16 of this Rule; (2) Factual and legal issues to be litigated; (3) Evidence, including objects and documents, that have been marked and will be presented; (4) Names of witnesses who will be presented and their testimonies in the form of affidavits; and (5) Schedule of the presentation of evidence.

(c) The pre-trial order shall also contain a directive to the public prosecutor to appear for the State and take steps to prevent collusion between the parties at any stage of the proceedings and fabrication or suppression of evidence during the trial on the merits.

(d) The parties shall not be allowed to raise issues or present witnesses and evidence other than those stated in the pre-trial order. The order shall control the trial of the case, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. (e) The parties shall have five days from receipt of the pre-trial order to propose corrections or modifications.

SECTION 16. Prohibited compromise.— The court shall not allow compromise on prohibited matters, such as the following: (a) The civil status of persons; (b) The validity of a marriage or of a legal separation; (c) Any ground for legal separation; (d) Future support; (e) The jurisdiction of courts; and (f) Future legitime.

SECTION 17. Trial.— (1) The presiding judge shall personally conduct the trial of the case. No delegation of the reception of evidence to a commissioner shall be allowed except as to matters involving property relations of the spouses. (2) The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved. No judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed. (3) The court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons, including members of the press, who do not have a direct interest in the case. Such an order may be made if the court determines on the record that requiring a party to testify in open court would not enhance the ascertainment of truth; would cause to the party psychological harm or inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or timidity; would violate the right of a party to privacy; or would be offensive to decency or public morals.

(4) No copy shall be taken nor any examination or perusal of the records of the case or parts thereof be made by any person other than a party or counsel of a party, except by order of the court.

SECTION 18. Memoranda.— The court may require the parties and the public prosecutor, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor General, to file their respective memoranda in support of their claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated. It may require the Office of the Solicitor General to file its own memorandum if the case is of significant interest to the State. No other pleadings or papers may be submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of the period herein provided, the case will be considered submitted for decision, with or without the memoranda. SECTION 19. Decision.— (1) If the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties. (2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and the public prosecutor, shall be served with copies of the decision personally or by registered mail. If the respondent summoned by publication failed to appear in the action, the dispositive part of the decision shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation. (3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen days from notice to the parties. Entry of judgment shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or new trial, or appeal is filed by any of the parties, the public prosecutor, or the Solicitor General. (4) Upon the finality of the decision, the court shall forthwith issue the corresponding decree if the parties have no properties.

If the parties have properties, the court shall observe the procedure prescribed in Section 21 of this Rule. The entry of judgment shall be registered in the Civil Registry where the marriage was recorded and in the Civil Registry where the Family Court granting the petition for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage is located.

SECTION 20. Appeal.— (1) Pre-condition.— No appeal from the decision shall be allowed unless the appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from notice of judgment. (2) Notice of appeal.— An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal from the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the adverse parties.

SECTION 21. Liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes.— Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition, or, in case of appeal, upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting the petition, the Family Court, on motion of either party, shall proceed with the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, including custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. SECTION 22. Issuance of Decree of Declaration of Absolute Nullity or Annulment of Marriage.— (a) The court shall issue the Decree after: (1) Registration of the entry of judgment granting the petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage in the Civil Registry where the marriage was celebrated and in the Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court is located; (2) Registration of the approved partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, in the proper Register of Deeds where the real properties are located; and (3) The delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes in cash, property, or sound securities.

(b) The court shall quote in the Decree the dispositive portion of the judgment entered and attach to the Decree the approved deed of partition.

Except in the case of children under Articles 36 and 53 of the Family Code, the court shall order the Local Civil Registrar to issue an amended birth certificate indicating the new civil status of the children affected. SECTION 23. Registration and publication of the decree; decree as best evidence.— (a) The prevailing party shall cause the registration of the Decree in the Civil Registry where the marriage was registered, the Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court is situated, and in the National Census and Statistics Office. He shall report to the court compliance with this requirement within thirty days from receipt of the copy of the Decree. (b) In case service of summons was made by publication, the parties shall cause the publication of the Decree once in a newspaper of general circulation. (c) The registered Decree shall be the best evidence to prove the declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage and shall serve as notice to third persons concerning the properties of petitioner and respondent as well as the properties or presumptive legitimes delivered to their common children.

SECTION 24. Effect of death of a party; duty of the Family Court or Appellate Court.— (a) In case a party dies at any stage of the proceedings before the entry of judgment, the court shall order the case closed and terminated, without prejudice to the settlement of the estate in proper proceedings in the regular courts. (b) If the party dies after the entry of judgment of nullity or annulment, the judgment shall be binding upon the parties and their successors in interest in the settlement of the estate in the regular courts.

SECTION 25. Effectivity.— This Rule shall take effect on March 15, 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than March 7, 2003.

Santos v. Court of Appeals[9] declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. It should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. It must be confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.[10]

The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved (Santos vs. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995).

The Court laid down more definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of the law in Republic v. Court of Appeals[11] (Molina) as follows: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it as the foundation of the nation. It decrees marriage as legally inviolable, thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be protected by the state. The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity. (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties or one of them was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent

that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their I do's. The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. x x x (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage. (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision. (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts x x x

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.[12]

A later case, Marcos v. Marcos,[14] further clarified that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to introduce expert opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if the totality of evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly established.[15]

This evidentiary approach is repeated in Ting v. Velez-Ting.[24] Under this evolutionary development, as shown by the current string of cases on Article 36 of the Family Code, what should not be lost on us is the intention of the law to confine the application of Article 36 to the most serious cases of personality disorders, clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage; that the psychological illness that must have afflicted a party at the inception of the marriage should be a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she is about to assume.[25] It is not enough that the respondent, alleged to be psychologically incapacitated, had difficulty in complying with his marital obligations, or was unwilling to perform these obligations. Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor an adverse integral element in the respondents personality structure that effectively incapacitated him from complying with his

essential marital obligations must be shown.[26] Mere difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will on the part of the spouse is different from incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological condition or illness; irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a persons refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.[

C. Outline of Steps Below is a general outline of the steps in the declaration of nullity of marriage. Please note that in some instances, these steps may not be followed. 1. Preparation / Psychiatric Evaluation. The client goes to the lawyer and discusses his/her case. After conferring with the lawyer and submission of all of the requirements, the lawyer will draft the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. If the ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage is psychological incapacity, it is advisable to secure the services of an expert witness (psychologist/psychiatrist) at this stage. The expert witness will later on testify on the psychological incapacity of the petitioner and/or the respondent. It is also advisable that the executive summary of the report of the expert witness form part of the petition. 2. Filing of Petition. The petition is filed before the Central Office of the Regional Trial Court. Cases involving marriage and family matters will be raffled only to designated Family Courts. This will take about a week. After the raffle, the petition will be forwarded to the selected court. 3. Summons. The court will issue summons one or two weeks after the case is raffled. The respondent has 15 days to file his/her answer. In some instances, the lawyer of the respondent may ask an extension of 15 days to file his/her answer or any pleading. 4. Notice to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The court will issue an order requiring the petitioner to submit copies of the petition to the OSG and the prosecutor assigned. Note, however, that under pertinent rules, a copy of the petition should be furnished to the OSG within 5 days from filing thereof. 5. Collusion Hearing. The judge will order the prosecutor assigned to the case to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties and if the evidence submitted is not fabricated or suppressed. The prosecutor is usually given 20 days from receipt of the order to investigate the parties. The report of the investigation of the prosecutor should be submitted 10 days after the 20-day period. 6. Preliminary Hearing/ Pre-Trial Order. The court will hold a preliminary hearing, which requires both parties to attend. A pre-trial order will be issued.

Usually the preliminary hearing is called about two to four months after the filing of the petition. 7. Hearing. This is the time when the petitioner will present his/her evidence of psychological incapacity. The number witnesses will depend on the case, but usually, two to three witnesses will be enough, if the case is not contested (meaning, the respondent will not object). The witnesses will be the petitioner herself/himself, the expert witness and one collaborating witness. Below is the order of presentation of evidence: A. Presentation of the petitioner herself/himself • Direct examination of the petitioner by her counsel • Cross-examination by the State • Redirect examination by the petitioner’s counsel • Re-cross-examination by the State. B. Presentation of the psychologist or psychiatrist • Direct examination of the petitioner by his/her counsel • Cross-examination by the State • Redirect examination by the petitioner’s counsel (if necessary) • Re-cross-examination by the State (if necessary) C. Formal Offer of Exhibits D. Comments/Objections to the Formal Exhibits by the State Prosecutor • The prosecutor is given an opportunity to comment or object to the offer exhibits. (10-15 days from receipt of the Formal Offer of Exhibits) 8. OSG Certification. An order will be issued directing the OSG to issue a certification briefly stating its reasons for its agreement or its objection to the petition within 30 days from the receipt of the said order. Likewise, the petitioner will be directed to submit all exhibits and transcribed stenographic notes to the OSG within 7-15 days from receipt of the order. 9. Decision. The Court will then issue an order that the case is submitted for resolution. The decision may be released 30-90 days after the said order is issued. A declaration of nullity of marriage may be finished from 10 months or several years depending on various factors like the complexity of the case (e.g. properties and custody, support are heavily contested), availability of the court,

witnesses and documentary evidence, and also the place where the petition will be filed. D. Requirements and Costs Below is a list of some of the requirements before filing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage: • NSO copy of marriage certificate of the spouses and birth certificates of the children (obtained within 6 months from the filing of the petition) • Barangay certificate and Community Tax Certificate evidencing residence over the last 6 months of the province or city where the petition will be filed • Psychiatric evaluation of the spouses (if the ground relied upon is psychological incapacity) • Copy of marriage settlement or pre-nuptial agreement, if any • Copy of agreement, if any, relating to custody, support, etc. • Inventory of properties of the spouses and of the ACP or CP (Please see questionnaire or other document request list of the counsel) • List of witnesses (Please see questionnaire to be provided by the counsel) • Other documentary or object evidence The major cost components of having a marriage declared void ab initio include the following: 1. Filing Fee (Under PhP10,000.00, if no properties are involved; higher, if there are properties involved); 2. Legal Fees (Acceptance Fee, Pleading Fees, Appearance Fees); and 3. Psychological/Psychiatric Evaluation and Expert Witness Fees (varies, estimated PhP40,000 to PhP60,000.00).

Psychological Incapacity 1.

What is “Psychological Incapacity”?

According to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.” The Psychological Incapacity under Article 36 contemplates an incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will. It consists of: (a) A true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage; (b) The inability must refer to the essential obligations of marriage, that is, the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, and the procreation and education of offspring; and (c) The inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality. It means that if one of the parties is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his obligation as a spouse, then the marriage is void from the very beginning. That is why the legal remedy is to petition the court for nullity of the marriage.

2. When can the ground of “Psychological Incapacity” be used in the nullity of marriage? The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage. (Republic v. CabantugBaguio, G.R. No. 171042, June 30, 2008) These are disorders that result in the utter insensitivity or inability of the afflicted party to give meaning and significance to the marriage he or she has contracted. (Toring v. Toring, G.R. No. 165321, August 3, 2010)

Psychological incapacity must refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. (Navarro, Jr. v. Cecilio-Navarro, G.R. No. 162049, April 13, 2007)

3. How can I establish that there is Psychological incapacity in my marriage? The Supreme Court had laid down the guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36: a) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. b) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. c) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. d) Such incapacity must be also shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. e) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume essential obligations of marriage. f) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. g) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. h) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in

the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997)

4. What are the elements of the Psychological Incapacity, for the marriage to be annulled? The elements of Psychological incapacity are: (a) Grave – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; (b) Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and (c) Incurable and Permanent – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. (Dimayuga-Larena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159220, September 22 2008) The Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity should refer to a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants such as those enumerated in Article 68 of the Family Code and must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. (Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No. 112019, January 04 1995)

5.

How is Psychological Incapacity usually manifested?

Some of the instances below are manifestations of Psychological Incapacity are: (a) The refusal of one spouse to live, dwell or cohabit with the other spouse after marriage, without any fault at all from the aggrieved spouse; (b) By the deliberate refusal to give support to the other spouse, or their common children;

(c) When marriage is unbearable due to compulsive gambling, alcoholism, drug addiction or violent jealousy of the spouse.

6. Would the above instances be enough to prove the existence of psychological incapacity? The incapacity of the spouse must such that, that it prevents him from complying with the essential marital obligations as stated in the Family Code, like: (a) To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children though sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage; (b) To live together under one roof for togetherness spells the unity in marriage (Article 68 of the Family Code) (c) To observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, for love, sexual comfort and loyalty to one another are the basic postulates of marriage (Article 68 of the Family Code of the Philippines) (d) To render mutual help and support for assistance in necessities, both temporal and spiritual, is essential to sustain the marriage. (Article 68 of the Family Code of the Philippines) (e) To jointly support the family for the spouses are joint administrator in the partnership. (Article 70 of the Family Code of the Philippines) (f) Not to commit acts which will bring danger, dishonor or injury to each other or to the family for the safety and security of the family at all times is a primordial duty of the spouses. (Article 72 of the Family Code of the Philippines)

7. Would the presentation of an expert witness be enough to prove the existence of the psychological incapacity in my marriage? The presentation of expert proof in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity presupposes a thorough and an in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist of expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. It is

indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. (Suazo v. Suazo, G.R. No. 164493, March 12, 2010)

The incapacity should be established by the totality of evidence presented during trial. (Bier v. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008)

8. Is there a need for that the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated has been personally examined by a physician or psychologist? The Supreme Court held that, although there is no requirement that a party to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist, there is a need to prove the psychological incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person alleging such disorder. (Bier v. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, 27 February 2008) Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua nonfor the declaration of nullity of marriage based psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19 2000) Correspondingly, the presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. (Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, 13 February 2009)

9.

When does the action or defense for declaration of nullity prescribe?

The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage does not prescribe, regardless of whether or not the marriage was celebrated before or after the effectivity of the Family Code.

10. My husband wouldn’t help me in the chores around the house, saying those are a woman’s job. Can I use the ground of psychological incapacity in my petition for annulment against him? No. It bears stressing that psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. (Marable v. Marable, G.R. No. 178741, January 17, 2011) The intention of the law is to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. (Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 04, 1995) Proving that a spouse failed to meet his or her responsibility and duty as a married person is not enough; it is essential that he or she must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness. (Yambao v. Republic, G.R. No. 184063, January 24, 2011)

11. My husband started showing signs of being psychologically incapacitated about 4 years ago. However, we had been married for 15 years, and all that time, he was the perfect husband. Can I use the ground of psychological incapacity in my petition for nullity of my marriage? No. The psychological incapacity must be proved to have been existing before the marriage. If after the marriage, the ground of psychological incapacity cannot be used. The Supreme Court had repeatedly pronounced that the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, with its incapacitating nature fully explained and established by the totality of the evidence presented during the trial.

12. I have not been getting along with my wife for quite a while now. Can I allege psychological incapacity as a ground for filing an annulment case against her?

No you cannot. What the law requires to render a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity is downright incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty much less ill will. The mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” does not constitute psychological incapacity. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997)

13. If there is any doubt in my case for nullity of my marriage, how would the court resolve the case? The Supreme Court held that the Constitution sets out a policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. (Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, G.R.No. 171042, 30 June 2008)

14. What will happen to the children if the petition for nullity of marriage has been granted on the ground of psychological incapacity? The children will still be considered legitimate. Children of marriages void under Article 36 (psychological incapacity) and under Article 53 (second marriage without delivery of legitime to children of the first marriage) are considered legitimate, as an exception to the general rule.

“P E T I T I O N

PETITIONER x x x, by counsel, respectfully states:

1.

Petitioner is xxx years old, born on xxx, old and a resident of xxx City.

Petitioner is a graduate of Bachelor of Science in xxx from the xxx. He had completed various relevant training in his field that catapulted him to the coveted position of Chief Mate at a very young age. Petitioner was the ship captain at the age of xxx years of the xxx, where he took of his training in his field. Attached as Annex “A” hereof is a copy of the Bio-Data of the petitioner for ready reference.

2. The respondent xxx is xxx years old, born on xxx, and a resident of xxx City, where she may be served with summons for the instant case.

Respondent finished xxx at a school in xxx. While petitioner knew that respondent was employed with xxx from xxx to xxx, he has no knowledge of respondent’s present employment, if any.

3. Petitioner has been employed at the xxx Corporation from xxx until present. He was a Deck Cadet from xxx to xxx; Third Mate from xxx to xxx; Third/Second Mate from xxx to xxx; Second Mate / Chief Mate from xxx to xxx; and Chief Mate from xxx to xxx. He holds the record of being the youngest ship captain at a young age of xxx years old of the xxx Corporation.

4. Petitioner had a son out of wedlock, during his bachelor years. The son is xxx, xxx years old, born on xxx, xxx grade pupil. Petitioner has been the one providing financial support to xxx through remittances deposited in a bank.

Attached as Annex “B” is a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of xxx.

5. Petitioner and respondent first met sometime in xxx. They initially became text mates from xxx to xxx of that year when one of Petitioner’s college classmates gave him Respondent’s mobile number. However, they eventually lost contact starting xxx because Petitioner had to undergo a seaman-training course at the xxx Institute xxx where mobile phones are not allowed while in the duration of the training. By xxx, Petitioner was able to successfully finish his training course and resumed his communication with the Respondent. In the same month of xxx, Petitioner and respondent met for the very first time in xxx and engaged in pre-marital sex on the same day.

6. Since then, petitioner and respondent saw each other once every week. They were already sweethearts when petitioner boarded a vessel as Desk Cadet in xxx for hisfirst work contract. Their relationship continued via long distance, with constant calls and emails. In xxx, petitioner had his vacation in the Philippines. It was then when he introduced the respondent to his family. The latter warmly accepted the respondent.

7. In xxx, respondent started to stay at the house of the petitioner, with petitioner’s parents and siblings. Petitioner’s siblings started to notice that petitioner and respondent often engaged in verbal arguments over petty matters. They would shout at each other and no one would want to back off. Petitioner expected the respondent to give in during fights but respondent would even get angrier than him, not wanting to lower her voice.

8. Moreover, Petitioner discovered that Respondent is the dominant and controlling type. She wanted things her way and would be very angry when her

wants are not granted. Petitioner realized that he and respondent are incompatible to each other. He already wanted to separate from her but he could not do so when she broke the news that she was already pregnant with their child.

9. Petitioner and respondent eventually got marriage to each other on xxx, despite the uncertainties already entertained in the mind of the petitioner, because petitioner had asked the permission of the respondent’s mother for the said marriage. After the nuptial, the couple continued to establish their dwelling place at the house of Petitioner’s parents.

Attached as Annex “C” hereof is a copy of the Certificate of Marriage of the parties.

10. While living together as husband and wife, petitioner found out that respondent was a very jealous and suspicious woman. Whenever Petitioner arrived home from his training, Respondent would check his belongings, especially his mobile phone, for any evidence of a probable infidelity on his part. She suspected him of having an illicit affair with his former girlfriends, particularly with the one whom he had sired a child out of wedlock. While petitioner admitted that he had a son prior to meeting the respondent and he had flings before; he no longer engaged in such flings after his wedding with the respondent. However, respondent did not believe the petitioner and she grew all the more suspicious of his actions, accusing him of infidelity even if she has no concrete basis at all.

11. Despite the fact that their marital relationship was already in shambles as they continue to engage in heated argumentation and fights, the supposed child of the parties, xxx was born on xxx.

Attached as Annex “D” hereof is a copy of theCertificate of Live Birth of xxx.

12. Petitioner observed the distance that developed between him and xxx. At first his attributed the said distance due to his overseas employment. Petitioner was often told that the features of xxx are starkly different from his. Finally, he decided to subject xxx and himself to DNA to ascertain his paternity of the said child.

The differences in the facial features of the petitioner and Xxx Xxx are readily visible in the attached picture of the petitioner and xxx taken recently in xxx (Annex “E” hereof).

13. Much to the petitioner’s dismay, the DNA result conducted on Xxx Xxx and himself shows that “xxx is not the biological father of xxx”.

Attached as Annex “F” hereof is a copy of the abovereferred DNA Result conducted by the xxx on xxx.

14. Prior to the birth of xxx, petitioner again boarded a vessel with a position of Third Mate from xxx to xxx for his second work contract. This time, respondent started to nag him about

financial support to the point that his work on board was already being affected. She demanded more money from the petitioner and was questioning the support he is giving for his siblings’ education. Petitioner argued that prior to getting married; he had already cleared this with the respondent. He told her that he will still support his siblings who sacrificed their education for him to graduate first so that he can have a job. Supporting them was his way to pay them back for their sacrifices. However, respondent took this negatively and would demand more financial support even if petitioner was also giving to her family whenever needed. Respondent would even pick up a fight with Petitioner’s youngest sibling with regards the financial remittances. Despite the objection of the respondent, petitioner continued to finance the education of his siblings to compensate them for their sacrifices they underwent for his education.

15. Petitioner has been regularly sending adequate amount of monetary remittances to the respondent. His monthly financial allocations were initially amounting to PHP xxx, until it increased to PHP xxx. At present, he is sending PHP xxx to the respondent and xxx on a monthly basis. Despite these amounts, respondent is not yet satisfied and even demanded more. She once told the Petitioner that she must receive PHP xxxx when he is a third mate, PHP xxx as second mate, PHP xxx as chief mate and PHP xxx as captain.

16. When Petitioner boarded the vessel with a position of Third Mate, promoted to Second Mate, from xxx to xxx, for his third work contract, Respondent transferred location to xxx because she did not want to live with his parents and siblings. In the same year, respondent asked PHP xxx from the petitioner supposedly for the heart operation of xxx. The following year, she asked PHP xxx from him for follow-up operation of the child xxx. Petitioner had incurred debts just to raise such amount in order to improve the health condition of the child xxx. Later on, however, Petitioner inquired at the xxx Hospital with regards the child’s record and was shocked to learn that no operations were performed for the child. In fact, the child has no record of consultation on the said hospital. It was then when Petitioner started to ask the respondent where his hard-earned income was spent on through the years.

17. By hindsight, petitioner feels having gravely victimized by the respondent thru huge faked hospitalizations of the child xxx, who was subsequently tested as not belonging to the petitioner.

18. When Petitioner took his vacation in the Philippines in xxx, he no longer stayed with the respondent in xxx. They were already separated during this time although he still visited the child xxx in xxx whenever he had no training in the shipping company for his second mate examination. During his visits, the estranged couple still engaged in sexual intercourse.

19. In xxx Petitioner boarded a vessel as Second Mate, promoted to Chief Mate, for his fourth work contract. He then met another woman, named xxx and engaged in an illicit affair with her. The following year, xxx, Petitioner and xxx sired a child named xxx, to whom the petitioner also extends financial support as his child.

20. Petitioner returned for a vacation in the Philippines in xxx. Petitioner and Respondent were able to find ways to reconcile to the marriage between the parties another chance. He thought that the latter would change for the better but he was just disappointed at her. Petitioner was then reviewing for his examination as chief mate while Respondent was questioning the huge amounts he was paying for the review. She was also demanding so much time from him amidst the review. To address the complaint of the respondent, petitioner asked her to leave Xxx and stay with him at his parents’ abode so that they could be together more often.

21. However, their relationship became worse than ever, as their incompatibilities surfaced out again. They engaged all the more in heated arguments and fights even at the presence of his parents and siblings.

Petitioner was unable to sleep due to the extended quarrels with the respondent and he attended his review classes without sleep. Petitioner lack peace of mind and concentration he needed for his review. He temporarily found solace in the company of his male friends, as they engaged in drinking sessions every night, every after review for the chief mate examination. When he arrived home, he was pestered by the angry respondent who continually nagged him.

22. Petitioner expected respondent to be caring and thoughtful towards him, but she failed to look after Petitioner’s welfare. She was cold and apathetic towards his concerns. Respondent could not even prepare merienda for the petitioner and would require him to prepare his own merienda. Moreover, respondent continued to be suspicious of him, constantly checking his belongings upon arrival from his review classes. Respondent was selfish, jealous and indifferent. Respondent never cared for the petitioner and his needs.

22. In the early part of xxx, the couple again engaged in heated fights when respondent refused to allow the petitioner to attend the wake of his grandmother in xxx. Petitioner could not bring respondent along with him in the wake because his family and relatives strongly disapproved of her.

23. During heated fights, Respondent would call her parents and sister in xxx, crying and seeking for sympathy, which the petitioner hated.

24. Their marital fights became all the more frequent and intense until Petitioner again boarded his vessel as Chief Mate for the fifth time on xxx to xxx.

25. While on board, Respondent created a fake Facebook account of the Petitioner and added most of his friends, including his co-workers in the vessel. Through the said fake account, Respondent was communicating with his co-workers, telling them that she and her child was living in a squatter’s area and are already settling for rock salt as their meals (nagdidildil ng asin). Petitioner was infuriated upon learning this because he was certain that his financial allocations for the respondent and the child xxx never waned. He still sends them monetary support on a monthly basis. Petitioner further gathered that respondent also accused his parents and siblings of sending her death threats. This became the last straw of their relationship and petitioner finally decided that it is all over.

26. Petitioner believes that their relationship is already beyond repair. Petitioner did everything he could to save his marriage with the respondent, however, their incompatibility along with respondent’s pervasively flawed character had made it impossible to redeem the relationship. Petitioner narrated It was in this premise that Petitioner finally decided to separate from the respondent; hence the filing of this annulment case.

27. The recent finding by the petitioner that the child xxx is NOT his biological son further strengthened Petitioner’s desire to severe any remaining ties he has with the respondent who had lied to him all these years that they were together.

28. The parties do not own any properties, whether real or personal.

29. The petitioner has engaged the services of the undersigned

counsel, Laserna Cueva-Mercader & Associates Law Offices for the preparation, filing and prosecution of the instant case.

30. The petitioner had engaged the services of Dr. xxx, Clinical Psychologist, for the determination ofpsychological evaluation of both parties, who will be presented as an expert witness in support of the instant petition.

Attached is Annex “G” is a copy of the Curriculum Vitae of Dr. xxx, Clinical Psychologist.

31. The psychological tests administered by Dr. xxx on the petitioner were: Revised Beta Examination II; Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test; Draw A Person Test; Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test ; Sach’s Sentence Completion Test Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory I; Hand Test; and Self Analysis.

32. Based on the results of the psychological tests and interview on the parties and corroborator as well as based on the background data gathered and marital history of the parties, the findings of Dr. xxx are reproduced in the succeeding paragraphs hereinbelow, culled from the Report of Dr. xxx, M. A., xxx, attached as Annex “H” hereof, to wit:

“After a thorough analysis of the data presented, it is revealed that the eventual shattering of the conjugal partnership between xxx and xxx is brought forth by the psychological incapacitation of the Petitioner and Respondent. They were both governed by a debilitating psychological conditions, which made them inept to be actively part of a relationship where mutuality is founded and required. Their attitude and behavior are all self-centered in nature that both

their strivings are largely focused to cater their pathological needs and demands”.

33. The reported behavioral manifestations of the petitioner satisfies the criteria of a “PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVEPERSONALITY DISORDER COMORBID ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER”. This personality disorder caused the petitioner to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

34. Dr. xxx characterized the psychological incapacitation of the petitioner as follows:

Petitioner is regarded as anegocentric and self-centered person who upholds a sense of entitlement. This being the case, he only thinks of himself and anything that is in favor of him. He looked down on others, degrading another person’s capacity and worth, perceiving them on a lower stature than he is. During argumentations, Petitioner would often tell the Respondent, “ako ang matalino, top notcher ako e…” In return, he feels superior and indomitable when these are just means to cover up deep-seated inadequacies and crippling anxiety. Petitioner also has mixed-up priorities in life. To him, his parents and siblings are more important than his wife and child. Respondent narrated, “tinatakot niya kaming mag-ina na di daw niya kami susustentuhan, kaya daw niya kaming kalimutan…mas importante sa kaniya ang kasikatan niya sa family niya…mas priority niya ang family niya kaysa sa amin.”

Petitioner is described as an emotionally weak-willed man who could not directly assert himself to the circumstances and people around him. From the very start, he has reservations about marrying Respondent but still pursued with the wedding when he could have cancelled the ceremony in the first place. Petitioner narrated, “tinuloy ko po ang kasal kahit ayaw ko na sana, naisip ko na gusto ko na iatras nag kasal…pero dahil nakapagpaalam na sa mga magulang namin, itinuloy na rin.” On most occasions while inside the marriage, Petitioner

was not able to stand as the real man of the family as he lacks the ability to express power and dominion over circumstances. He allowed his parents and siblings to dictate the terms to him. Instead of being heard as the man, his decisions are typically without authority and this made him truly incapable of leading the family. He is always unsure and filled with feelings of inadequacy.

Petitioner is depicted as a sullen and argumentative person. He is always on the defensive side of things so much so that his marital relationship has been bombarded with heated disputes and fights. Petitioner is described as “madaling magalit, madaldal kapag galit, has a bad temper.” On the onset, he would succumb to existing norms and standards as these would augment his subjugated disposition and would probably add quality to his depleted self concept. However, he internally broods hostile and oppositional feelings which further pave way to his aggressive tendencies and impulsive predilection when provoked. He lacked adequate control of his emotions and would direct them towards the Respondent and their child. During marital disputes, Petitioner was expecting the Respondent to give in during fights but Respondent would even get angrier than him, not wanting to lower her voice. Petitioner narrated, “pag galit ako, nasabay siya sa init ng ulo, di siya papatalo sa akin.”

Petitioner sees himself as misunderstood and unappreciated, ill-fated and demeaned by others. He feels victimized in his situation without seeing where his shortcomings lie and his own share of negative contributions why his situation come on such ending and unfortunate condition. Instead, he just believes that others are seemingly unfair and are taking advantage of him. Petitioner is illustrated as “masyadong mabait, madaling mapaniwala, masyadong maawain…” Negativistic as he is, it has always been his way of thinking that other people never saw his sacrifices. He thinks that he is receiving lesser appreciation than what he deserves, and the discontented self-image that he has is blamed towards the way other people treats him. This makes him all the more embittered, disgruntled, and disillusioned in their relationship.

Petitioner manifested vacillating emotional condition rendering him unstable to display adequate reactions to relational stimulations. He dithers from being the acquiescent and contrite type to the impulsive and hostile type. He was never

consistent with the attitude and behavior he has shown towards the Respondent. At one point, he would be in his passive stance. Petitioner and Respondent saw and communicated with each other last xxx. However, during this time, Petitioner told Respondent, “hindi po niya ipapa-annul ang kasal namin dahil mahal daw niya ako…” At another point, he would eventually feel angry to the extent of threatening the Respondent, even her life. In xxx, Petitioner blackmailed the Respondent by telling her that he will spread out her nude photos in his laptop. Respondent narrated, “sa totoo lang po ma’am, natatakot ako sa mga banta niya dahil alam kong kaya niyang gawin iyon.” Respondent narrated, “I can prove his text messages na papatayin niya ako, papatayin niya kami…”

Petitioner is pictured as a man who takes his commitments lightly. He is emotionally elusive when it comes to his marital difficulties so much so that he tends to act passively just to preserve emotional attachment. He may appear conforming but inwardly he is filled with scorn and contempt for his own incapacity which he often expressed outwardly by way of passive-aggression and procrastination. As a result, he engaged in an illicit affair with another woman. In xxx, Petitioner boarded a vessel for his fourth work contract. He then met another woman, named xxx, and engaged in an illicit affair with her. The following year, xxx, Petitioner and xxx sired a child.

Petitioner lacked adequate insight towards his pathological condition. This being the case, he failed to evaluate the wrongness of his actions and was unable to profit from experience. He utilized rationalization mechanism and offers alibis to place himself in the best possible light, despite his evident shortcomings or failures. He would always put the blame on the Respondent while defending his impulsive and self-centered ways by making justifications of his decisions and actions. He would even highlight his pathetic condition, being the one who passively honors his financial obligations, which apparently places him in a positive spotlight. However, monetary allocations are only part of his responsibilities as a husband. He may argue that he was making it big and successful in his career, but he was actually using this as his scapegoat, allowing his marital relationship to suffer and emotional bond to really flourish. He was blaming the Respondent, the situation, and other people, but never himself.

The personality disorder of the petitioner is a by-product of the unfavorable experiences and negative exposures he had during his childhood and adolescent years. On those crucial times, he was just on his way of establishing the very core of his person and was just building the permanent foundation of his personality, serving as the grounds of his current maladaptive behaviors. Growing up, Petitioner had been accustomed to obey his parents, along with existing house rules. This being his childhood conditioning, he had learned the value of obedience and compliance so that he can be accepted and approved by his perceived society. He desperately tried hard to prove his worth and this practice of pleasing people made him to repress his own feelings especially if these are not incongruent with the people he chose to please.

Alongside, Petitioner’s compelling self-interests and needs become stronger as these gain much control of his actions and decisions. He grew impulsive when it comes to the immediate gratification of his goals. He became too preoccupied of his own pleasures that he demanded other people to cater to his every need. His increasing self-orientation clashed with his debilitating desire to perform in order to be accepted by his immediate milieu. These are poorly integrated into a passive and self-centered person. Though he may put up a show of efficiency and obedience, his emotion is deemed lacking in depth thereby sabotaging his relationships.

As no one was there to curb his defective ways, and help him alter his growing negativism narcissism during childhood until he entered adulthood, all his erroneous insight and faulty way of perceiving things made the reference of his current maladaptive behavioral pattern. He is further found to have no ample consciousness of his defective behavior which made him laid up to properly function as a responsible, loving, caring, protective, faithful, trustworthy and understanding husband”.

35. The reported behavioral manifestations of the respondent

satisfies the criteria of a “HISTRIONICPERSONALITY DISORDER WITH UNDERLYING ANTISOCIAL FEATURES”. This personality disorder caused the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

36. Dr. Xxx characterized the psychological incapacitation of the respondent as follows:

“Respondent has a striking sense of entitlement. She is demanding of immediate compliance to her desires and would want petitioner to meet her expectations. She always wanted to feel being treated in a way where she plays the upper hand in the relationship and would still insist on what she wants even if it is already impractical. She always wanted the attention of the petitioner. She demands for his time and money and requires that she be immediately appeased though she knew that it impossible to do so. If her wishes are not heeded, she easily bombards the Petitioner with unnecessary and pointless naggings that are not helpful in any way. Petitioner discovered that Respondent is the dominant and controlling type. She wanted things her way and would be very angry when her wants are not granted. Petitioner narrated, “pag galit ako, lalo niya ako gagalitin, sasabay siya, kaya ko na lang mananahimik, pakumbaba na lang ako.” It was then when Petitioner realized that he and Respondent are incompatible to each other. He already wanted to separate from her but he could not do so when she broke the news that she is already pregnant with their child.

The respondent’s way of interaction is often characterized by seductive and provocative behaviors to elicit the response she wanted from man. With her interpersonally attention-seeking ways, she can be in her flirtatious, vain and exhibitionistic approach to others especially the Petitioner. They engaged in sexual acts not long after the met each other personally. She would usually employ dramatic tactics and emotional trap to manipulate the Petitioner into doing his bidding. She knew that Petitioner would not be able to stand knowing that their son are ailing, thus by all means she used it against him to incur money. On the same year, Respondent asked PHP 300,000 from the Petitioner apparently for their child’s heart operation. The following year, she asked PHP

400,000 from him for follow-up operation of their child. Petitioner had incurred debts just to raise such amount in order to improve the health condition of their child. Later on, however, Petitioner inquired at the Baguio Hospital with regards the child’s record and was shocked to learn that no operations were performed for the child.

She is an egocentric and pleasure oriented person. She is selfish and only thinks of her own comfort and happiness, even at the expense of her marriage and family. She is reluctant to give up selfish indulgence and failed to be responsible enough to attend to her duties. Arguments would ensue since she wanted every dime of Petitioner’s income though she knew that he also had responsibilities with his siblings. She is unwilling to share and questions the Petitioner if he ever gives support to his family. Yet Petitioner would also be disappointed since she never saved any remittances that he sends to her. She demanded more money from the Petitioner and was questioning the support he is giving for his siblings’ education. Petitioner argued that prior to getting married; he had already cleared this with the Respondent. He told her that he will still support his siblings who sacrificed their education for him to graduate first so that he can have a job. Supporting them was his way to pay them back for their sacrifices. However, Respondent took this negatively and would demand more financial support even if Petitioner was also giving to her family whenever needed. Respondent would even pick up a fight with Petitioner’s youngest sibling with regards the financial remittances. Petitioner narrated, “dahil lang sa biruan, nagkakaaway sila ng kapatid kong bunso, pikon kasi siya (respondent).” Despite Respondent’s protests, Petitioner continued to finance the education of his siblings.

She lacks empathy and is unwilling to consider the feelings of other people especially the Petitioner. She utilizes rationalization mechanism to justify her own transgression and blames everything to the petitioner. Her blindness of her own fault made changes impossible in the marriage since she is not inclined to wear the shoes of the Petitioner. She demands, carps and argues just to get what she wants without being sensitive that Petitioner has his own needs too. She wanted to come in sight as the victim just to make light of her own misdeeds in the marriage wherein fact it was her poor decisions that has put her in the position.

She is deceitful woman who is not fettered by any moral obligation to create lies for her personal gains or profit. Always aiming to alleviate herself, she lied regarding the identity of her child and passed it on as the son of the Petitioner to trap him into marrying her. She never cared for the well-being of her son or the Petitioner knowing that the scores of lies she created will affect both of them. In the past years that they were together, she kept to herself the knowledge that Petitioner is not the biological father of her son yet she asserted herself like a fishmonger wife’s who always demanded for support.

The personality aberration that respondent is suffering from has its initial course during the crucial developmental phase in her life—childhood and adolescent years—where negative experiences and child-rearing practices severely affects the personality development. In the case of the Respondent, she grew up without a father figure since her parents separated when she was a baby and he never communicated with them again after he left them. Looking at the picture, the young respondent has developed a strong sense of insecurity and inadequacy in absence of fatherly affection that she needs. Hence, she grew up compensating for this insecurity by engaging in relationship with men by being seductive and provocative in the hopes that they could fill the void that she has inside only to be always disappointed since they always falls short to her high expectation. She never realized that they would never fulfill or quench the emotional insecurity that she has.

Along with this is the lack of fatherly affection comes the lack of adequate discipline and guidance from her mother who was lenient in her ways with them especially the respondent. Albeit that they were not financially well off, her mother indulges her whim and allows her so much freedom to do what she wants. Punishment and sufficient disciplinary measures were not provided to her leaving the young respondent with the defective notion that she has the liberty to do what she wants. Later on, with the excess freedom given to her, she has come to believed that she could use anyone at her own disposal, without care for his or her feelings and emotions. Since she grew up perceiving herself so deprived of love, she compensates later on by asserting her bloated self-esteem to people. She became vain, materialistic and demanding as her way to appease whatever ineptitude she has. Enjoying a rather unfettered life due to the absence

of effective caretakers, she became dominant and demanding, as well as stubborn in insisting for what she wants no matter how impractical it could be. Respondent did not learn to be submissive, that she would do things without giving consideration on how it might affect others or her relationships.

With this, due to the absence of proper guidance, and effective disciplinary means, respondent grew up embracing these maladaptive responses and turning them as the pillars of her personality”.

37. Dr. xxx concluded that the respective psychological incapacities of the petitioner and respondent speak of antecedence because such “flawed personality began before they entered marriage and manifested only thereon”.

38. Dr. xxx described the respective psychological incapacities of the petitioner and the respondent as “GRAVE, PERVASIVE, SERIOUS, SEVERE, and PERMANENT rendering it totally beyond repaid despite available treatments and intervention considering the severity of petitioner’s and respondent’s aberrant psychological conditions, which makes reconciliation very difficult and impossible”.

39. Quoted hereunder is the pertinent part of the Report of Dr. xxx, viz:

Since the psychological aberration of the Petitioner and Respondent stemmed early in their lives, these have been engraved into their system making their functioning and adjustments highly defective. Being an integral part of their wellbeing, such disorders are considered to be grave, pervasive, serious, severe and permanent rendering it totally beyond repair despite available treatments and intervention. Likewise, their psychological incapacitations are noted to be of juridical antecedence – meaning - such flawed personality pattern began before they entered marriage and manifested only thereon. Considering the severity of Petitioner and Respondent’s aberrant psychological conditions, reconciliation is found to be very difficult and impossible”.

40. The diagnosed psychological incapacities of both the petitioner and the respondent prevent them from mutually performing their marital duties to each other. In support of this, Dr. xxx states:

“Erstwhile couple, xxx and xxx, could never live together harmoniously as authentic husband and wife with the psychological incapacitation of both of them. The hope of reconciliation with the hope of a functional or normal marital union founded on love, respect, trust, support and commitment is viewed to be uncertain and impossible as these essential attributes of marriage never existed from the start of the relationship”.

41. Dr. xxx thus recommends that the marriage between the parties be declared null and void based on the established psychological incapacitation of both the petitioner and the respondent as follows:

“Hence, with much consideration to the findings and discussions made, the undersigned psychologist humbly requests to this Honorable Court that their

marriage be declared null and void, on the account of Petitioner’s psychological incapacitation”.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the marriage of the parties be declared null and void from the beginning under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Petitioner also prays for other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises. Las Pinas City, xxx.

LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Petitioner Unit 15, Star Arcade, C. V. Starr Avenue Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City Tel. Nos. 872-5443; 846-2539 Fax No. 846-2539

X x x.

VERIFICATION AND ANTI-FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATION

X x x.

x x x."