National Capital Judicial Region Branch 58 Makati City
Mr. Leonilo Antonio, Petitioner
02000034CA
CIVIL CASE No.
-versus-
FOR: Declaration of nullity
of marriage
Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, Respondent
xx
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM
Defendants, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully file their Answer in response to the Complaint of the Plaintiffs and interpose as well as their counterclaim against the latter, to wit: ANSWER 1. The allegations in number 6.1 to 6.8, are denied by the respondent and claimed that she performed her marital obligations by attending to all the needs of her husband. She asserted that there was no truth to the allegation that she fabricated stories, told lies and invented personalities, the truth as being follows: 1.1.The allegation in number 6.1 is denied by respondent and claimed that she concealed her child by another man from petitioner because she was afraid of losing her husband. 1.2.The allegation in number 6.2 is denied by respondent and claimed that she told petitioner about Davids attempt to rape and kill her because she surmised such intent from Davids act of touching her back and ogling her from head to foot. 1.3.The allegation in number 6.3 is denied by respondent and claimed that she was actually a BS Banking and Finance 1
graduate and had been teaching psychology at the Pasig
Catholic School for two (2) years. 1.4.The allegation in number 6.4 is denied by respondent and claimed that the she was a free-lance voice talent of Aris de las Alas, an executive producer of Channel 9 and she had done three (3) commercials with McCann Erickson for the advertisement of Coca-cola, Johnson & Johnson, and Traders Royal Bank. She told petitioner she was a Blackgold recording artist although she was not under contract with the company, yet she reported to the Blackgold office after office hours. 1.5. The allegation in number 6.5 is denied by respondent and claimed that she claimed that a luncheon show was indeed held in her honor at the Philippine Village Hotel on 8 December 1979. 1.6. The allegation in number 6.6 is denied by respondent and claimed that she vowed that the letters sent to petitioner were not written by her and the writers thereof were not fictitious. Bea Marquez Recto of the Recto political clan was a resident of the United States while Babes Santos was employed with Saniwares. 1.7. The allegation in number 6.7 is denied by respondent and claimed that she belied the allegation that she spent lavishly as she supported almost ten people from her monthly budget of P7,000.00. 1.8. The allegation in number 6.8 is denied by respondent and claimed that she admitted that she called up an officemate of her husband but averred that she merely asked the latter in a diplomatic matter if she was the one asking for chocolates from petitioner, and not to monitor her husbands whereabouts. 2. The respondent argued that apart from her non-disclosure of a child prior to their marriage alleged on number 6.1, the other lies attributed to her by petitioner were mostly hearsay and unconvincing. She alleged that the totality of the evidence presented on number 10 in the petition is not sufficient for a finding of psychological incapacity on her part. 3. In addition, respondent presented Dr. Antonio Efren Reyes (Dr. Reyes), a psychiatrist, to refute the allegations in number 9 anent her psychological condition. Dr. Reyes testified that the series of tests conducted by his assistant, together with the screening
procedures and the Comprehensive Psycho-Pathological Rating
Scale (CPRS) 4. Dr. Reyes concluded that respondent was not psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. He postulated that regressive behavior, gross neuroticism, psychotic tendencies, and poor control of impulses, which are signs that might point to the presence of disabling trends, were not elicited from respondent.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
1. In the instant case of Aurelio v. Aurelio, the Molina guidelines must therefore be complied with, one: that the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be alleged in the complaint; that such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage; and that the non-complied marital obligation must be stated in the petition. 2. Cases that dont fall squarely under theMolinaguidelines should not be dismissed outright. A rigid interpretation ofMolinameans that petitions must be strictly construed in favor of the validity of marriage and any deviation from the guidelines, no matter how reasonable, must lead to the dismissal of the petition. 3. In the instant case of Marcos v. Marcos, Article 36 of the Family Code, is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. 4. First guideline under Molina provides that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. Marriage is protected under the Constitution and existing laws. In case of DOUBT in petitions for nullity cases, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage. 5. In the instant case of Siayngo vs. Siayngo, 441 SCRA 422 (2004), psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, (3) incurability. 6. In the instant case of Choa vs. Choa, 392 SCRA 641 (2002), a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. 7. In Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, G.R.No. 171042, 30 June 2008, 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. 3
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. 8. In the instant case of Yambao v. Republic, G.R. No. 184063, January 24, 2011, 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.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, answering defendant respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to render judgment as follows: