1

Republic of the Philippines

Third Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Malolos, Branch VIII

CHRISTOPHER DELAS ALAS,

Petitioner,

-versus-

Civil Case No. 123456

For: Petition for
Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage

MARIA CHRISTINA PEREZDELAS ALAS,

Respondent.
x ---------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT
The RESPONDENT, Maria Christina Perez Delas Alas, through
counsel, respectfully state:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a petition filed by CHRISTOPHER DELAS ALAS for
Declaration of Nullity of her marriage to respondent MARIA
CHRISTINA PEREZ-DELAS ALAS. The petitioner brought this action
based on Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines as amended
on the ground that the respondent is psychologically incapacitated to
discharge the basic and essential obligations of marriage.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On 17 September 2012, summons and a copy of the petition and
its annexes were served upon the respondent.
Upon respondents failure to file an answer, the court issued an
Order dated 12 October 2012, directing the public prosecutor to
conduct an investigation to ensure that no collusion existed between
the parties and to submit a report thereon.
On 30 January 2013, as per public prosecutors report, there
was no collusion between the parties.
At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the fact of marriage.
At the trial, petitioner presented himself, Aidalyn Cruz and
clinical psychologist Nedy Tayag as witnesses.

MATERIAL FACTS
Petitioner Christopher Delas Alas and respondent Maria
Christina Perez-Delas Alas got married on June 08, 2000. Three (3)
months after they got married, respondent gave birth to their
daughter Adela Beatriz P. Delas Alas. Their marriage was marred with
constant quarrels and disagreements. The act of the respondent
during their marital union, wherein she continued to act and think
like an unmarried woman, prompted the petitioner to file a petition
for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity.

ISSUE
Is the respondent psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations which would warrant a declaration of
nullity of her marriage with the petitioner?

DISCUSSION
Respondent Maria Christina is not psychologically
incapacitated.
Christophers petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is
anchored on Article 36 of the Family Code which provides:
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.
In Santos v. Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos,
310 Phil. 21 (1995), the Court first declared that psychological
incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) judicial
antecedence; and (c) incurability. 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."
In Dimayuga-Laurena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159220,
22 September 2008, the Court explained:

(a) Gravity It must be grave and serious such that

the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
duties required in a marriage;
(b) Judicial 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) Incurability It must be incurable, or even if it
were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of
the party involved.
Respondents alleged psychological incapacity is premised on
her being too preoccupied in fulfilling her dreams which resulted in
her neglecting her family. Petitioner also points that respondent
enjoyed partying with her friends without regard to their daughters
welfare, continued to work as a call center agent, gave no
consideration to petitioners opinion and developed a sexual
relationship with her officemate. Petitioners portrayal of respondent
as being a self-centered person is not enough. It must be shown that
the spouse is incapable of meeting his/her responsibilities and duties
as married person, due to some psychological illness. 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.1
It is not the respondents fault if she only wanted the best for her
family. That is the primary reason why she is working so hard because
the petitioner has no job to support their family. Partying with her
friends does not necessarily mean that she disregards their daughters
1 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997.

welfare, much less that of having a sexual relationship with another

person. As the Court ruled in a case, the wifes promiscuity and the
psychiatrists report that she was suffering from social personality
disorder exhibited by blatant display of infidelity, emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility cannot be equated with psychological
incapacity.2
The isolated circumstances that the petitioner provided as evidence of
respondents alleged psychological incapacity does not equate to her
incapacity to fulfil her marital obligations enumerated in Articles 68
to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code, hence, cannot be
considered to be grave.
With respect to expert testimonies, although it is considered as
extremely helpful in evaluating the behavioural pattern of the person
alleged to be psychologically incapacitated 3, the Court may or may not
accept the testimony of the psychologist or psychiatrist because the
decision must be based on the totality of the evidence. 4 The testimony
of the expert witness, if credible and if consistent with the totality of
the evidence, which is also credible, must be given great weight.
However, in the present case, the testimony and the report of the
expert witness are disproportionate with the totality of the evidence
presented. The evidences presented appear to be exaggerated
extrapolations derived from isolated incidents rather than from
2 Dedel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151867, 29 January 2004.
3 Matias v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 109975, 09 February 2001.
4 Paras v. Paras, G.R. No. 147824, 02 August 2007.

continuing patterns. The conclusions on the report of the expert

witness, on the other hand, are snapshots rather than a running
account of the respondents life from which her whole life is totally
judged. Thus, such psychological assessment should not be
considered comprehensive enough to be reliable.
The petitioner had the burden of proving the nullity of his
marriage with respondent but failed to discharge it. This case does
not anymore need an extended argument to show that respondent is
not psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital duties as
wife of the petitioner.
In

conclusion,

the

undersigned

counsel

submits

that

respondent Maria Christina is not psychologically incapacitated to

comply with the essential marital obligations. Her being too
preoccupied by the fulfilment her own dreams, irresponsible and
emotionally immature does not mean that respondent is suffering
from grave psychological maladies that render her incapable of
complying with the essential obligations of marriage. Marriage is an
inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family 5 that the
State cherishes and protects. While the undersigned counsel
expresses sympathy with petitioner in his unhappy spousal
relationship with respondent, totally terminating that relationship,
however, may not necessarily be the fitting denouement to it.

5 Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully

moved and prayed to the Honorable Court that the petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage between Christopher Delas Alas
and Maria Christina Perez-Delas Alas be DENIED.
Other reliefs, remedies, just and equitable in the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Quezon City for Malolos, 23 March 2015.

ATTY. JACKELYN JOY PERNITEZ

PTR No. 1234567/Jan. 18, 2013/Quezon City
IBP No. 1233456/ Lifetime/ Quezon City
Roll No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. III-1234567

COPY FURNISHED (through personal service):

Prosecutor Magnolia P. Nestle

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

Atty. Jose Carlo Montemayor

Counsel for the petitioner

Atty. Katlyn Aguilar-Bilgera

LF Adviser