REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 218
FAMILY COURT
QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA
ACE ANTHONY CORPUZ, CIVIL CASE NO. 324790
Petitioner,
- Versus - for:
JACKIE MONTECALCON CORPUZ,
“Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code”
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\\
MEMORANDUM
COME NOW Respondent, through the undersigned counsel,
unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submit and present this
Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:
PREFATORY
Despite the changing trends, Marriage has always been and will always
be the foundation of the family. One would even hope that love would be
enough to keep the family together. This case was commenced by a struggling
husband against his distant wife who decreed the absolute nullity of the
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
THE PARTIES
Petitioner ACE ANTHONY CORPUZ, of legal age, Filipino, married to
herein respondent and a Singapore OFW where he may be served with
processes of this Honorable Office.
AND
Respondent JACKIE MONTECALCON CORPUZ, of legal age,
Filipino, married to herein petitioner and a Singapore OFW where she may be
served with processes of this Honorable Office.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 25, 2018, herein Petitioner filed a petition for Absolute
Nullity of Marriage against the Respondent. Summons was issued and was
served to the Respondent.
On December 20, 2018, the Respondent filed his answer.
ANTECEDENT FACTS
1. Petitioner ACE ANTHONY CORPUZ and Respondent JACKIE
MONTECALCON CORPUZ were validly married for nine (9) years,
they met sometime on year 2008 through work, which later on led to
courtship and cohabitation, until their exchange of marital vows in a
church wedding on September 12, 2009 at the Archdiocesan Shrine of
Jesus the way, the truth and the life (besides SM Mall of Asia). A copy
of their Marriage Certificate is hereby attached as “ANNEX A”.
2. After their marriage, the couple decided to settle at Sta. Rosa Hills,
Santa Rosa-Tagaytay Rd., Silang, Cavite where they built their family
home;
3. The union produced and blessed with two children namely Charles
Corpuz born on January 12, 2011 and Kianne Corpuz born on March
12, 2013. Copies of their Birth Certificates are hereby attached as
“ANNEXES B AND C”.
4. In January 2011, the couple’s marriage was off to a good start which
manifested through their display of intimacy; they could then easily
address minor issues in their relationship. The Petitioner is truly a
“family man” now and then as he placed the priority of his family over
and above anything and anybody else, as he continued to be the family’s
provider.
5. Despite the Petitioner’s constant devotion towards the family, in the
middle stages of their marriage, respondent started showing
thoughtlessness in the performance of her marital obligations as she
would prefer to party with her friends, often leaving her children alone.
6. Respondent was distant and did not help in rearing their child, saying
she knew nothing about children and how to run a family. Respondent
spent almost every night out for late dinners, parties and drinking
sprees. Petitioner noticed that Respondent was alarmingly dependent
on his mother and suffered from a very high degree of immaturity.
7. In 2011, Respondent left the family for Singapore and became an OFW.
A year later, Petitioner also left the Philippines to work in Singapore,
which he hoped would strengthen their bond and rekindle their spark.
8. Unfortunately, sometime in the year 2014, their relationship grew
colder. Despite hiring a helper, the spouses’ relationship continued to
wither, Petitioner then became weary. Petitioner tried to fix their
relationship, even suggesting that they spend more time together, but
Respondent showed no interest.
9. The situation got worse when the immaturity of the Respondent
manifested even more so, as she would ask for the helper to sleep near
her, despite the presence of her husband.
[Link] after, Respondent confronted the Petitioner confessing that that
she has already fallen out of love. A year later, Petitioner saw a text
from his wife’s phone, words “I love you” sent by his wife’s officemate.
Notwithstanding, he tried to his best efforts to reignite the flame to
possibly reverse the deteriorating condition of their marriage;
[Link] the middle part of year 2016, The spouses decided to sleep in
separate rooms. This scenario went on for months until the Petitioner
left his family and the conjugal dwelling with justifiable cause and has
not returned ever since. Despite the said desertion, the Petitioner never
failed to inform his whereabouts to his family, to comply with his
obligations to his family and give financial support especially to his
children. From then on, there is a complete cessation of marital relations
between petitioner and respondent, both personal and property. Their
conversations only concern financial support and whereabouts of their
children thus no other subject matters are involved other than that.
[Link] issue of the financial support to their children led to some
disagreements especially on the part of the respondent since she is not
satisfied with the money given by the Petitioner and in case she is still
not satisfied, she would not let the Petitioner see his children.
[Link] settle their disputes in relation to the financial support, they had a
Mediation in Singapore for the alternative remedy other than a Court
case which have reached its finality in the year 2017 through a
Maintenance Order concerning Financial Support where the amount is
already settled by the Court and is hereby attached as “ANNEX D”.
However, despite the settled amount, the respondent contends that the
amount agreed upon was insufficient, and due to the Petitioner’s refusal
to give additional monthly dues, he was not allowed to see his children.
[Link] did not have any chance to see his children nor to talk to
them. He can no longer tolerate respondent’s continued action for it
already affects and tramples the rights of the Petitioner as a father.
Hence, the foregoing considered, this Petition for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage.
[Link] respondent’s actions amounting to failure on her part to perform
her duty to live with the petitioner, duty to observe mutual love, respect
and fidelity and duty to render mutual help and support is just too much
for the Petitioner to handle. Hence, the foregoing considered, this
Petition for Nullity of Marriage is being filed to the said Honorable
Court for the following ground: Psychological Incapacity.
ISSUES
I
WHETHER OR NOT ARTICLE 36 BE THE GROUND OF THE
PETITION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCES AND TESTIMONIES
PRESENTED ENOUGH TO PROVE JACKIE’S PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY MANIFESTED AT THE TIME OF THE CELEBRATION
OF THE MARRIAGE
ARGUMENTS & DISCUSSION
I
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS A PROPER GROUND FOR NULLITY
OF MARRIAGE
Basing on the evidences and testimonies of the witnesses, Article 36
must be the ground for nullity of Ace and Jackie’s marriage.
In view of the lack of definition of the concept of psychological
incapacity in the Family Code, problems arose with regards to its application
and interpretation, leading to many misapplications. Article 36 of the Family
Code1 provides that “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of
the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
There have been countless of cases which expressly identified
Psychological Incapacity. In Castillo v. Republic2, the characteristics of
Psychological incapacity were identified as such: “ (a) gravity, i.e., it must be
grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a marriage, (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., 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) incurability, i.e.,
it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond
the means of the party involved.” Despite the aforementioned characteristics,
there has yet to be an official definition of Psychological Incapacity.
The existence of the Republic v. Molina3 guidelines has changed how
cases involving Psychological Incapacity are being handled. In Republic v.
Tobora-Tionglico, it was expressed that medical practitioner should expressly
assess the respondent on whether or not he or she is Psychologically
incapacitated. “There was simply no other basis for Dr. Arellano to conclude
1 The Family Code (1988)
2 Castillo v. Republic, G.R. No. 214064, February 6, 2016
3 Republic v. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
that Lawrence was psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential
marital obligations apart from Katrina's self-serving statements. To make
conclusions and generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based
on the information fed by only one side, as in the case at bar, is, to the Court's
mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the
truthfulness of the content of such evidence.”
One of its popular definition portrays "Psychological incapacity," as a
ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, which refers
to an incapacity that causes a party to be truly in a dilemma of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties
to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code,
among others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love,
respect and fidelity and render help and support.
II
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY POSSESS THE
CHARACTERISTICS
As corroborated by petitioner, sufficiently proved that respondent
suffered from psychological incapacity. Respondent's Inadequate and
Dependent Personality Disorder made her immature, reckless and unable to
fully comprehend and assume the essential obligations of marriage. As
provided by Dr. Reduble’s testimony:
Q: With regard to the wife, what were your conclusions on his
situation?
A: The wife has presented clinical signs and symptoms of
Inadequate and Dependent Personality Disorders.
Q: What was your basis in concluding such disorder?
A: Upon examining the background of the wife, as to her
personal information, relationships with her family, friends and her
married life, she has undergone series of tests which indeed made such
disorder apparent.
Her personality disorder is due to her dependence and close
attachment to her parents, that makes her subservient to him, following
his decisions and adopt them to their personal issues, at the expense of
his emotional independence, decision making and judgment, and even
sexual preferences.
Furthermore, her reliance and attachment to their helper is an
obvious manifestation of that disorder
Q: When did it become apparent?
A: It started before marriage, but became manifest only after the
celebration, due to the marriage’s demands and obligations.
Q: With all the tests you’ve conducted, what is your inference
then?
A: With all of these, such disorder is considered permanent in
nature, because pattern of behavior started early in psychological
development, that became deeply embedded int her personality and that
no amount of treatment or professional assistance can modify or
change it permanently. Considering its severity, because it hampered
and disrupted her normal functioning, it affected their marital
relationship, which renders him psychologically incapacitated to
perform his duties and responsibilities of marriage.
The root cause of respondent's personality disorder was due to an
event from the respondent’s childhood. Dr. Reduble stated that respondent's
own psychological disorder probably started during her late childhood years
and developed in her early adolescent years.
The juridical antecedence of respondent's psychological incapacity was
also sufficiently proven. Petitioner attested that he noticed respondent's overly
dependent and back then, slightly immature persona but thought nothing of it.
He believed that she would change after they got married and would grow up
when they would have children; however, this did not happen. Respondent's
irresponsibility, and immaturity would often be the subject of their fights.
The incurability and severity of respondent's psychological incapacity
were likewise discussed by Dr. Reduble. She vouched that a person with
dependent personality disorder would have a hard time leaving her immediate
family, and would be rather childish at times, and loves to be with other
people. This was corroborated by petitioner when he stated that respondent
would rather stay with their helper than her own husband. Petitioner consulted
a lawyer, a priest, and a doctor, and suggested couples counselling to
respondent; however, respondent refused all of her attempts at seeking
professional help.
Article 68 of the Family Code provides that “The husband and wife are
obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support.”
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court to decide in favor of the petitioner and specifically decreeing
the following:
1. The Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage between Petitioner
Ace Anthony Corpuz and Respondent Jackie Montecalcon
Corpuz.
2. The dissolution of their conjugal property relations and the division
of the net conjugal assets;
3. The custody of Charles Corpuz who is now nine (9) years old to be
awarded to his father if the child preferred so. Also, custody of
Kianne Corpuz if he already reached the right age to state his
preference and in favor of the same;
4. The disqualification of respondent from inheriting from the
petitioner by intestate succession as well as the revocation of the
provisions in the will of the petitioner (if any) in favour of the
respondent;
5. For once and for all, Petitioner’s obligations which refers to marital,
parental and property relations should be cleared most especially to
the financial support to be given to his family.
PETITIONER further prays for any other relief/s as may be deemed
just and equitable by the Honorable Court.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 18th day of
September 2013 in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
Erika R. Maggay
GayTezGay and Associates Law Office
Counsel for the Respondent
2/F Madrigal Bldg. 183, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
[Link].; _____
Page No.; _____
Book No.; _____
Series of 2013.
