Answer-format-for-nullity.docx

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH ____ MANILA JUANA GO– DELA CRUZ, JDRC Case No. ___________ Petitioner, (for: Declaration of Nullity Under Article 36 of the Family Code) -versus – JUAN DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x ANSWER Respondent, JUAN DELA CRUZ, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers the following in response to the Petition for Declaration of Nullity. 1. ¶2 is admitted insofar as his personal circumstances are concerned. 2. ¶16.2 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Respondent did have his reasons for getting angry at the Petitioner and that it was the latter who had locked herself up in the bathroom. 3. ¶19.2 is DENIEDinsofar as the Respondent’ssupposed act of forcing the Petitioner to drink the water is concerned. 4. ¶21 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had sexual liaisons with other women is concerned.

5. ¶22 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Petitioner had requested the Respondent to engage in sexual intercourse with her. 6. ¶24.1 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had sexual intercourse with his masseur is concerned. 7. ¶25 is ADMITTED, insofar as the heated altercation is concerned. But it is averred that the Respondent was likewise the victim of battery inflicted by the Petitioner. 8. ¶25.1 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being as follows: 8.1.

Petitioner and Respondent were inside their car, parked along Roxas Boulevard. Petitioner unnecessarily and unexpectedly raised the issue regarding the Respondent’schildren. Specifically, the Petitioner expressed her desire to send them away from the family home. Petitioner then used profane and derogatory language to describe the said children, cursing their very existence.The Respondent tolerated the Petitioner’sbehaviour for five (5) minutes, upon the lapse of which he demanded the latter to desist. In response, the Petitioner slapped and punched the Respondent, for which reason the latter was prompted to strangle her. However, the Petitioner bit the Respondent’s wristand was thus able to escape.

8.2.

The Petitioner ran away from the car and the Respondent followed her, demanding that she return. As the Petitioner ran, she turned her head to voice her refusal. This prevented her from seeing the light post ahead, which she ran into and hit her head. Forced into a stop by the pain, the Petitioner was quickly taken by the Respondent and brought to a hospital.

9. ¶27 on the consultation with Dr. Navarro is ADMITTED. But the Respondent DENIES that it is sufficient to establish his supposed psychological incapacity. The Respondent DENIES that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is grave enough to prevent him from complying with the essential marital obligations. 10. The Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defense that the petition FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

10.1. A cursory reading of the petition would show that it fails to allege the element of INCURABILITY. In the case of Santos v. CA, the Supreme Court enumerated the three requirements of psychological incapacity: (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.1 10.2. While ¶29 alleges juridical antecedence and ¶32 alleges gravity, NOWHERE IN THE PETITION IS IT ALLEGED THAT THE SUPPOSED ROOT CAUSE OF THERESPONDENT’S PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS PERMANENT OR INCURABLE. 10.3. The Respondent thus respectfully prays that the petition be dismissed for FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. _____________, Philippines, __Date__. VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE Counsel for Respondent 14thFloor Philamlife Tower 8 767 Paseo de Roxas Paseo de Roxas, Makati City Tel. No. 702-5930 to 02 Email: [email protected] By: CHRISTOPHER JOHN VIRTUCIO Roll No. 37489 IBP No. 457133/1-3-2014/Manila PTR No. 32414131/1-3-2014/Manila

310 Phil. 21 (1995).

1

Copy hereof received ______ this _________ day of ___________, ___________ JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Petitioner

VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Respondent COPY FURNISHED: JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM LAW OFFICE Counsel for Petitioner 27thFloor Trafalgar Bldg. 888 H.V. Dela Costa St., Makati City Tel. No. 800-0001 to 04 Email: [email protected] OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL Makati City OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Manila City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH __ MANILA CITY

Plaintiff Civil Case No. 22320-13-4724 For: ANNULMENT OF TITLE Versus

Defendants x------------------------------x ANSWER (With COUNTERCLAIM) DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully states that: Admissions / Denials 1. The defendant admits the contents of paragraph 1 and 2 insofar as the plaintiff’s and defendant’s personal circumstances are concerned; 2. The defendant strongly denies the allegations in paragraph 3 and 4 of the complaint, the truth of the matter is that Mr. X, of whom the plaintiff entered a contract with as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the land in dispute attached in the complaint as Annex “A”, is the defendant’sbrother who is neitherthe owner of the said land nor has the right nor authority to dispose of the said land. Given that his predecessor has no right to dispose of the land in dispute, the plaintiff does not have any grounds whatsoever to submit Notice of Adverse Claims in relation to such property;

3. The defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 5, 6 and 11 of the said complaint for he is still the owner of the land in dispute and has not yet transferred the same to anyone. The defendant never executed the said Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of theplaintiff nor of anyone. In fact, he was not even a party to such contract but his brother, Mr. X. With that, it was just right for himto refuse the plaintiff’s demand to have duplicate copy of the title for the eventual transfer to his name; 4. The defendant admits conditionally the allegations in paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the complaint. He, as the rightful owner of the land in dispute and having the authority to do whatever as he pleased with such property provided the same is not contrary to law, subdivided it and move to have separate titles thereto thus have the original title cancelled. He also introduced some improvements thereto that led the assessed value of the property for more than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50, 000.00). In consequence of today’seconomic crisis, He also decided to have the other portion of the property open for rentals and have received profits thereto. All of these activities were faithfully undertaken to by him as the rightful owner of the land subject of this litigation; Counterclaim 1. The defendant suffered besmirched reputation, mental anguish, and sleepless nights due to the filling of the baseless complaints by theplaintiff and claimed Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) by way of moral damages. 2. He engages the services of an attorney at law to protect his interestand incurred Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php 30,000.00) as attorney’sfees and Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) as cost of litigation. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered defendant, most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered: a)

Dismissing the complaint for utter lack of merit and cause of action.

b)

Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant moral damages, attorney’s fees and

cost of litigation as prayed for in the preceding paragraph, and

c)

And such other relief as may be deemed just and equitable under the

circumstance. ….date, Aparri, Cagayan, Philippines

(Signed) (Name of the Counsel) Counsel for the Defendant Rm. 123, Bea Building, Dominga St., Malate, Manila Roll No. 12345 IBP No, 12345/1-3-2010/Pasay City PTR No. 12345/1-3-2010/Pasay City MCLE COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE NO. X-1234567 09181234567 [email protected] Republic of the Philippines) City of Manila) Sc. x---------------------------------------------x VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION I, (Name of Defendant), Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of 5678 Donada St., Pasay City, Metro Manila, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and say: 1.

I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2.

I have caused the preparation of this Answer with Counterclaim;

3.

I have read and understood the contents of the same and that the allegations stated therein are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and based on the authentic records;

4.

That I hereby certify that at the time of the filing of this complaint , I have not commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of our knowledge, no such action is pending or was terminated in the Supreme Court, similar action has been filed or is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification has been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 19th day of September 10, 2017, City of Manila, Philippines.

(Name of Defendant) Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this _____________, by _____________ who exhibited to me (his/her) Community Tax Certificate No. _____________ issued at _____________, Philippines on _____________. Notary Public Doc. No. ______; Page No. ______; Book No. ______; Series of ______;

Copy furnished: (Name of the Counsel) Counsel for the Plaintiff (Office/Firm Address) IBP No. PTR No. Roll No.

MCLE Compliance No. (Contact Number) (E-mail Address) Explanation This certifies that personal service was not resorted to for the reason that due to time and manpower constraints, the same is impracticable.