Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 58
Makati City

Mr. Leonilo Antonio, Petitioner

CIVIL CASE No. 02000034CA

-versus-

FOR: Declaration of nullity

of marriage

Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, Respondent

xx

PETITION
COMES NOW, the petitioner, Leonilo Antonio, by counsel,
and unto this Honorable Court, MOST RESPECTFULLY AVERS,
THAT:
1. The petitioner, LEONILO ANTONIO, is of legal age, Filipino
citizen, married and a resident of 7685 Salcedo Street, Legaspi
Village, Makati City.
2. The respondent, MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, is of legal age,
Filipino citizen, married and a resident of 7685 Salcedo Street,
Legaspi Village, Makati City.
3. The petitioner and met in August 1989 when petitioner was 26
years old and respondent was 36 years of age.
4. Barely a year after their first meeting, they got married before a
minister of the Gospel1 at the Manila City Hall, and through a
subsequent church wedding2 at the Sta. Rosa de Lima Parish,
Bagong Ilog, Pasig, Metro Manila on 6 December 1990.
Attached as Annex A hereof is a copy of the
Certificate of Marriage of the parties.
5. Out of their union, a child was born on 19 April 1991, who sadly
died five (5) months later.
1

Solemnized by Rev. Victor M. Navarro, Minister of the PCCC, Las Pias, Metro Manila.

Solemnized by the Parish Priest, Rev. Fr. Rodolfo Aguirre Gallardo.

Attached as Annex C is a copy of the Certificate of Live

Birth.
6. The petitioner separated from the respondent on August 1,
1991 because the petitioner could no longer take the
respondents unusual behavior, to wit:
6.1 The respondent concealed the fact that she previously
gave birth to an illegitimate son3, and instead introduced
the boy to petitioner as the adopted child of her family.
She only confessed the truth about the boys parentage
when petitioner learned about it from other sources after
their marriage.4
6.2 The respondent fabricated a story that her brother-inlaw, Edwin David, attempted to rape and kill her when in
fact, no such incident occurred.
6.3The respondent misrepresented herself as a
psychiatrist to her obstetrician, Dr. Consuelo Gardiner,
and told some of her friends that she graduated with a
degree in psychology.
6.4 The respondent claimed to be a singer or a free-lance
voice talent affiliated with Blackgold Recording Company
(Blackgold); yet, not a single member of her family ever
witnessed her alleged singing activities with the group.
6.5 The respondent postulated that a luncheon show was
held at the Philippine Village Hotel in her honor and even
presented an invitation to that effect5 but petitioner
discovered per certification by the Director of Sales of
said hotel that no such occasion had taken place.
6.6 The respondent sent lengthy letters to petitioner
claiming to be from Blackgold and touting her as the
"number one moneymaker" in the commercial industry
worth P2 million.
6.7 The respondent represented herself as a person of
greater means, thus, she altered her payslip to make it
appear that she earned a higher income. She bought a
sala set from a public market but told petitioner that she
3

Named Tito F. Reyes II, born on 21 January 1982.

Rollo, p. 86.

acquired it from a famous furniture dealer. She spent

lavishly on unnecessary items and ended up borrowing
money from other people on false pretexts.
6.8 The respondent is calling up petitioners officemates
to monitor his whereabouts.
7. The petitioner tried to attempt a reconciliation but since her
behavior did not change, he finally left her for good in
November 1991.
8. The petitioner had engaged the services of Dr. Dante Herrera
Abcede (Dr. Abcede), a psychiatrist, and Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez
(Dr. Lopez), a clinical psychologist for the determination of
psychological evaluation of both parties, who will be presented
as an expert witness in support of the instant petition.
9. Based on the tests they conducted, the findings of Dr. Abcede
and Dr. Lopez are reproduced in the succeeding paragraphs
hereinbelow, attached as Annex D , hereof, to wit:
Petitioner was essentially a normal, introspective, shy and
conservative type of person. On the other hand, they observed
that respondents persistent and constant lying to petitioner was
abnormal or pathological.
10.Dr. Abecede and Dr. Lopez asserted that respondents extreme
jealousy was pathological. It reached the point of paranoia
since there was no actual basis for her to suspect that petitioner
was having an affair with another woman. They concluded
based on the foregoing that respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations.

NATURE OF THE PETITION

In this present Petition, the Petitioner prays of this Honorable Court to
declare her marriage null and void to Respondent on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
The following pertinent and relevant Family Code provisions are the
bases in the treatise of this Petition:
1. Article 36. "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. (As amended by Executive Order 227).

The psychological incapacity under Article 36 contemplates an

incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic
marital obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal or neglect
in the performance of marital obligations or ill will. It consists of:
a. A true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of
marriage;
b. The inability must refer to the essential obligations of
marriage, that is, the conjugal act, the community of life
and love, the rendering of mutual help, and the procreation
and education of offspring; and
c. The inability must be tantamount to a psychological
abnormality.

In the instant case of Toring v. Toring, G.R. No. 165321,

August 3, 2010, psychological incapacity is regarded as a
disorder that result in the utter insensitivity or inability of the
afflicted party to give meaning and significance to the
marriage he or she has contracted.
In the instant case of Navarro, Jr. v. Cecilio-Navarro, G.R.
No. 162049, April 13, 2007, psychological incapacity must
refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage.
2. Article 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together,
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help
and support.
3. Article 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of
the family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal
obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the
absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separate
properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income or
fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate
properties.
4. Article 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to
the conjugal union or commits acts which tend to bring danger,
dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved party
may apply to the court for relief.
The above instances are enough to prove the existence of
psychological incapacity. Articles 68, 70, and 72 was utilized in
order to make a point;
According to expert, Dr. Abcede, a
4

psychiatrist who had headed the department of psychiatry of at

least two (2) major hospitals, and whom the petitioner engaged the
services: persistent lying violates the respect that one owes
towards another. The lack of concern, the lack of love towards the
person, and it is also something that endangers human
relationship which is in contrast with Article 68. Consistent lying
of the guilty spouse about her income and job does not help to
support her family, and shed also spend lavishly as opposed to
her monthly income. The rationale of article 36 is that the
incapacitated person cannot comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage as opposed with article 72.
In the instant case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil.
664 (1997), psychological incapacity is a malady so grave and
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is to assume. The
notion that psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to
understand the obligation as opposed to a mere inability to comply
with them.
In the instant case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
112019, January 04, 1995, The intention of the law is to confine
the meaning of psychological incapacity 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 the instant case of Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

108763, February 13, 1997, the Supreme Court had laid down the
guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36:
a. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs
to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.
b. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a)
medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision.
c. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.
d. Such incapacity must be also shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable.
e. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability
of the party to assume essential obligations of marriage.
f. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by
Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband
5

and wife as well as Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children.
g. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our
courts.
h. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and
the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No
decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision,
briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or
opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.
The party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated does not need
to be personally examined by a physician or psychologist:
In Marcos vs. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755 (2000), the guidelines do
not require that a physician examine the person to be declared
psychologically incapacitated - what is important is the presence of
evidence that can adequately establish the partys psychological
condition, for indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is
enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity,then actual
medical examination of the person concerned need not be
resorted to.
Correspondingly, in the instant case of Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No.
161793, 13 February 2009, the presentation of expert proof
presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties
by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a
grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, it is respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court after hearing on the merits, that:
a. The petitioners marriage to respondent be declared null and
void.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
City of Makati, March 8, 1993.

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, LEONILO ANTONIO, of legal age, married, Filipino, and a
7685 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, after being
duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state:
1. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;
2. that I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of
my own personal knowledge;
3. That I have read all the contents thereof;
4. That the allegations constrained therein are true and correct of
my personal knowledge
5. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues or matter in any court, tribunal or quasijudicial agency and, to the best of our knowledge, no such action
or processing is pending therein,
6. That if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
proceeding has been filed before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I
undertake to report such within five (5) days therefrom to the
court wherein the original pleading and sworn certification
contemplated herein has been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 8 of

March 1993 in the City of Makati.

LEONILO ANTONIO
Affiant
Social Security System No. 27485972837
Issued in Makati City

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8 day of March 1993

at Makati City, Philippines, by affiant who exhibited to me her
Community Tax Certificate No. 75839204 issued on March 1993.

Glean Nacnac Law Offices

Cousel for Petitioner
2/F Madrigal Bldg. 183, Makati City

Doc. No.; 777777

Page No.; 3333
Book No.; 45
Series of 1993.