REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 1
BATANGAS CITY
ARIEL DE CASTRO AYA,
Petitioner,
10-8772

Spec. Proc. No.

For: Declaration

of Nullity

of

under Article 36
-versusCode of the

Marriage

of the Family
Philippines

THELMA D. JOYO-AYA,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
PETITIONER, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully submits the following as its memorandum:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This instant petition was filed on January 29, 2010 by the
petitioner for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground
of Psychological Incapacity of the respondent, which is the ground
provided for under Article 36 of the Family Code.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On July 6, 2010, petitioner ARIEL DE CASTRO AYA was
presented to the witness stand and he was able to testify and
prove that respondent has failed to fulfill her duties as a wife to
the petitioner to the point that she (respondent) has failed to give
love, respect and support to petitioner which are the most

essential marital obligation. Article 68 of the Family Code

specifically recites:
Article 68 The husband and the wife are obliged
to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support.
On September 14, 2010, petitioner through counsel
presented

Dr.

Angelita

L.

Mercado-Acosta

physician-

psychiatrist, 63 years old, residing at Bolbok, Batangas City, who

was

able

to

testify

that

respondent

was

psychologically

incapacitated before, during and after her marriage with the

petitioner and likewise proved that respondent, is suffering from
Histrionic Personality Disorder.
On

November

8,

2010,

petitioner

through

counsel

presented Jaime M. Aloria Jr., the childhood friend of the

petitioner who collaborated the testimony of petitioner as far as
the failure of the respondent to comply with all essential marital
obligations.
For continuous failure of the respondent to appear on
several hearings (December 7, 2010 and February 22, 2011) set
by the Court,

respondent right to present evidence was

considered waived by virtue of an Order dated February 22, 2011.

ISSUES
1.

Whether or not respondent was only able to prove emotional

immaturity and irresponsibility of the respondent which cannot be

equated with psychological incapacity.
2.

Whether or not the petitioner was able to substantiate his

claim that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to

comply with her marital obligation and that the respondents acts

are not merely a DIFFICULTY if not outright REFUSAL or

NEGLECT to perform some marital duties (Republic vs Court of
Appeals Molina 268 SCRA 198); and
3. Whether or not the instant case merely involves irreconcilable
differences and conflicting personalities.
DISCUSSION
I.

RESPONDENT IS NOT ONLY EMOTIONALLY

IMMATURE AND IRRESPONSIBLE BUT IS

INCAPABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL

MARITAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE.
Article 68 of the Family Code is very categorical on the
rights and obligations of husbands and wives as it succinctly puts:
Article 68 The husband and the wife are obliged
to live together,
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support.

Clearly, respondent was not able to comply with it, further,

not only is respondent emotional immature and irresponsible but
she

is

psychological

incapacitated

(Histrionic

Personality

Disorder) disabling her to comply with her marital obligations.

While the law provides that the husband and wife are
obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity
(Article 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually the
spontaneous mutual affection between husband and
wife and not any legal mandate or Court Order. (Cuaderno vs.
Cauderno, 120 Phils 1298)

This spontaneous and mutual affection between

husband and wife could hardly be inferred if not impossible to
realize when respondent adamantly failed to support the needs of
her

husband

and

worse,

respondent

had

an

adulterous

relationship and is in fact now living with another man.

These facts were sufficiently proven during presentation of
the testimonies of the witnesses for the petitioner and they are
hereby quoted:
Atty. Aguilera
Q

How was your relationship with the respondent after

your wedding?
Witness:
A

She showed her true self to me. She always wanted her

own way like for example is she did not allow me to sleep in their
room simply because I commented on her way of cooking.

Atty. Aguilera
Q

What happened thereafter?

Witness:
A

My wife became a constant nagger. She would shout at me

at every instant. There are times I would force to console

respondent even if clearly respondent was unreasonable.
Atty. Aguilera
Q

What happened next?

Witness:
A

One time, she threw an electric fan at me. In another

occasion, she screamed and humiliated me at the public wet

market where petitioners family owns a meat shop business. I
always experienced that constant nagging and screaming and I
never felt a day of peace from the respondent.
Atty. Aguilera
Q

What happened next?

Witness:
A

On one occasion, my wife told me that she wanted a

separation. When I consented to her wishes, she threatened to

kill herself. In another occasion, she slapped me in my face while
I am sleeping. Due to my marital dilemma, I started to drink in
order to relieve me of my tension from my wife.
Atty. Aguilera
Q

After that incident, what happened with your relationship

with the respondent?

Witness:
A

After the incident, I decided to leave our house as I could

not stand the nagging and screaming of my wife.

Atty. Aguilera
Q

During your separation, what happened to the respondent?

Witness:
A

During the first year of separation, she had an adulterous

affair. A year after, she had a miscarriage from her adulterous

affair which triggered her to attempt commit suicide by ingesting
Baygon, a pesticide.

(TSN August 24, 2010, p 8 of 18 and p 9 of 18)

Love is useless unless it is shared with one another.

Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in
marriage is to say I could not have cared less. This is so
because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has
nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy
which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is
a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a
function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the
continuation of family relations. (Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of
Appeals, G.R. 119190, January 16, 1997)

II.

PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS

CLAIM THAT RESPONDENT WAS PSYCHOLOGICALLY

INCAPACITATED

TO

COMPLY

WITH

HER

MARITAL

OBLIGATION AND RESPONDENTS ACTS ARE NOT MERELY A

DIFFICULTY IF NOT OUTRIGHT REFUSAL OR NEGLECT
TO PERFORM SOME MARITAL DUTIES.
The inclusion in the Family Code of Psychological Incapacity
had its bearings in the Canon Law Code.
paragraph 3 reads:

Thus Canon 1095,

"They are incapable of contracting marriage: who lack

sufficient use of reason; who suffer from a grave lack of
discretion

of

judgment

concerning

the

essential

matrimonial rights and duties which are to be mutually

given and accepted; who are not capable of assuming the
essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a
psychic nature".
Psychological Incapacity is now accepted in civil law as
ground for civil marriage annulment. Of course, it has already
been for years favored in the annulment of Catholic religion
marriages. (Dr. Gerardo Ty Veloso, Questions and Answers on
Psychological Incapacity as Ground for Marriage Annulment under
Article 36 of the Family Code, pp 13 25)
Relative to this, in the case of Republic vs Molina, (G.R. No.
108763, February 13, 1997) the Court made this pronouncement:
Interpretations
Matrimonial

given

Tribunal

of

by
the

the

National

Catholic

Appellate

Church

in

the

Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be

given great respect by our courts.
Apparently, it has been clearly proven by Dr. Angelita
L. Mercado-Acosta, when her testimony was given at the witness
stand that respondent is suffering from Histrionic Personality
Disorder,

form

respondent

has

of

been

Psychological
psychologically

Incapacity.
incapable

As

such,

to

fully

understand, internalize or feel and actuate the real essence of

marriage before, during and after their wedding.
The adult-like body that respondent is simply not
mentally and emotionally to carry the necessary elements of
marriage on her shoulders, the pervasively confused adolescent
in her held self centered and inadequate making it very difficult

for her to handle the responsibilities and obligation of a matured

married person.
These manifestations of respondents pathological
sense

of

inconsiderateness,

inadequacy,

insecurity

and

dependency would have not surfaced had she not entered the
bond of marriage, for marriage is one institution which required
the adult in her to give up emotional hangovers and positively
sublimate her hostile feeling and insecurities all in the name of a
matured heterosexual relationship.
III.

THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE

MERE IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES AND CONFLICTING

PERSONALITIES BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT
BUT

RATHER,

RESPONDENT

IT

INVOLVES

TO

COMPLY

THE

INABILITY

WITH

HER

OF

THE

MARITAL

OBLIGATIONS.
The

lack

of

steadfast

commitment

to

responsible

marriage, support and love to her husband, despite petitioners

effort, were glaring manifestations of respondents insensitivity,
inconsiderateness and selfishness that make her incapable to
comply with her marital obligations.
It appears that there is absence of empathy between
petitioner and private respondent. That is a shared feeling
which between husband and wife must be experienced not only
by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of
spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way process.

An

expressive interest in each others feelings at a time it is needed

by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital
relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two
consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor
gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment
to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social

institution. (Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals, G.R. 119130,

January 16, 1997)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Batangas City, March 23, 2011.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing
Memorandum be noted accordingly and after due hearing,
Respondent be declared psychological incapacitated to perform
their essential marital obligations, and consequently, declare
Petitioners marriage to Respondent null and void under Article 36
of the Family Code.

Petitioner prays for such other and further reliefs just and
equitable under the premises.
Batangas City, March 23, 2011.
AGUILERA LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Petitioner
ARIEL DE CASTRO AYA
Block E, Unit 13
Caedo Commercial Center
National Highway, Bo. Calicanto
Batangas City, 4200 Philippines