Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JANE DOE,
- Versus -
for:
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\\
MEMORANDUM
THE PARTIES
1.P e t i t i o n e r J a n e D o e i s o f l e g a l a g e , a n d r e s i d i n g o n 1 0 1 0
G i n o o Boulevard, Pasay City, where she may be served with legal processes
and notices issued by this Honorable Court;
2. Respondent Juan Dela Cruz is of legal age and residing on 123
Binibini Street,Quezon City, and may be served with legal processes and other
judicial notices thereto.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
3. On February 04, 2001, herein Petitioner filed a petition for Annulment
of Marriage against the Respondent. Summons was issued and was served to
the Respondent.
4. On March 20, 2001, the Respondent filed his answer.
MATERIAL FACTS
5. Jane testified that she first met Juan in 1981 at the San Lazaro
Hospital where they worked as medical student clerks. At that time, she
regarded Juan as a very thoughtful person who got along well with other
people. They soon became sweethearts. Three years after, they got married.
6. Jane averred that Juan kind and gentle demeanor did not last
long. In the public eye, Juan was the picture of a perfect husband and
father. This was not the case in his private life. At home, Jane described Juan
as a harsh disciplinarian, unreasonably meticulous, easily angered. Juan
unreasonable way of imposing discipline on their children was the cause of
their frequent fights as a couple. Jane complained that this was in stark contrast
to the alleged lavish affection Juan has for his mother. Juan deep
attachment to his mother and his dependence on her decision-making were
incomprehensible to Jane.
7. Further adding to her woes was his concealment to her of his
homosexuality. Her suspicions were first aroused when she noticed Juan
peculiar closeness to his male companions. For instance, she caught him in an
15. Alden further testified that he was with his brother on the day Jane
allegedly saw Juan kissed another man. He denied that such an incident
occurred. On that particular date, he and Juan went straight home from a trip to
Bicol. There was no other person with them at that time, except their driver
16. Juan expressed his intention to refute Dr. Santibanez findings by
presenting his own expert witness. However, no psychiatrist was presented
ISSUES
DISCUSSION
Marriage is the cornerstone of Philippine society and an inviolable social
institution. Separation, annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage can only
be based on grounds stated by law. The Family Code liberalized to a certain
extent these grounds by providing for Concealment of Homosexuality as a
ground for the declaration of nullity of a marriage. Basing on the evidences and
testimonies of the witnesses, Article 36 must be the ground for nullity of Jane
and Juans marriage. The author submits that this is a problem since the
concealment of homosexuality must be prior the marriage and the suspicions of
Jane to Juans sexuality was after their marriage and this may be broadened to
encompass any and all circumstances of incompatibility of the spouses and
allow the judges too much discretion to determine when declaration of nullity
Janes petition for nullity had no basis at all because the supporting
grounds relied upon cannot legally make a case under Article 46 of the
Family Code. In the same light, Republic v. Molina:[54]
Indeed, mere
allegations
of
conflicting
personalities,
irreconcilable differences, incessant quarrels and/or beatings,
unpredictable mood swings, infidelities, vices, abandonment, and
difficulty, neglect, or failure in the performance of some marital
obligations do not suffice to establish psychological incapacity
What Jane attempted to demonstrate were Juans homosexual
tendencies by citing overt acts generally predominant among homosexual
individuals?
She wanted
to
prove
that
the
perceived
homosexuality rendered Juan incapable of fulfilling the essential marital
obligations. Evidently, no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the
allegations that Juan is a homosexual and that he concealed this to Jane at the
time of their marriage.
Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that Juan is a homosexual, it cannot
be appreciated as a ground to annul his marriage with Jane. The law is
clear a marriage may be annulled when the consent of either party was
obtained by fraud, such as concealment of homosexuality. None of the
allegations was proven and by preponderance of evidence that Juan was a
homosexual at the onset of his marriage and that he deliberately hid such fact
to his wife. It is the concealment of homosexuality, and not homosexuality per
se, that vitiates the consent of the innocent party. Such concealment
presupposes bad faith and intent to defraud the other party in giving consent to
the marriage.
To reiterate, homosexuality per se is only a ground for legal
separation. It is its concealment that serves as a valid ground to annul a
marriage. Concealment in this case is not simply a blanket denial, but one that
is constitutive of fraud. It is this fundamental element that respondent failed to
prove.
In the United States, homosexuality has been considered as a basis for
divorce. It indicates that questions of sexual identity strike so deeply at one of
the basic elements of marriage, which is the exclusive sexual bond between the
spouses. In Crutcher v. Crutcher, the Court held:
Unnatural practices of the kind charged here are an infamous
indignity to the wife, and which would make the marriage relation
so revolting to her that it would become impossible for her to
discharge the duties of a wife, and would defeat the whole purpose
of the relation. In the natural course of things, they would cause
mental suffering to the extent of affecting her health.
However, although there may be similar sentiments here in
the Philippines, the legal overtones are significantly different. Divorce is not
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after
trial, judgment be rendered by this Honorable Court declaring the Petition for
Annulment of Marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent be
dismissed by lack of evidence.
Other reliefs just and equitable are prayed for.
September 18, 2013.
Quezon City, Philippines.
September
Erika R. Maggay
GayTezGay and Associates Law Office
Counsel for the Respondent
2/F Madrigal Bldg. 183, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
Doc.No.; _____
Page No.; _____
Book No.; _____
Series of 2013.