DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.

2018-80065
JD 1-1

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
Third Division

LINDA MANANSALA CRUZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

CIVIL CASE No. 54321

-versus- FOR: Declaration of Absolute

Nullity of Marriage

CESAR CRUZ,

Respondent-Appelle,

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

APPELLANTS BRIEF

SUBMITTED BY:

ATTY. RENZ MATTHEW I. CUNNINGHAM

Counsel for the Petitioner
SALAZAR SLYTHERIN LAW OFFICE
#367 Diagon Alley St., Manila Philippines

1
DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.
2018-80065
JD 1-1

SUBJECT INDEX

Subject Index 2

Assignment of Errors 3

Statement of the Case 4

Statement of the Facts 4

Issues 7

Arguments 7

Elements of psychological incapacity 7

Non-performance of basic and essential marital 8

obligations
9
Relief

Cases Cited (Alphabetical Order)

Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA (G.R. 119190)

Dimayuga-Laurena vs CA (G.R. No. 159220)

Santos vs. CA, 310 Phil. 21

Laws Cited

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 36

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 68

2
DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.
2018-80065
JD 1-1

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
Third Division

LINDA MANANSALA CRUZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

CIVIL CASE No. 54321

-versus- FOR: Declaration of Absolute

Nullity of Marriage

CESAR CRUZ,

Respondent-Appelle,

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

APPELLANTS BRIEF
Petitioner -Appellant, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully
files her appellants brief.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ITS

DECISION STATING THAT THE RESPONDENT-APPELLEE WAS
ABLE TO COMPLY WITH HIS BASIC AND ESSENTIAL MARITAL
OBLIGATIONS TO THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ITS

DECISION WHICH FAVORED THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE
BETWEEN LINDA MANANSALA CRUZ AND CESAR CRUZ.

III. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ITS

DECISION STATING THAT THE ELEMENT OF INCURABILITY WAS
NOT PRESENT IN THE CASE AT BAR.

3
DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.
2018-80065
JD 1-1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The petition1 filed by Linda Manansala Cruz to the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 4, January 06, 2017 for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on
the ground of Psychological Incapacity and non-performance of basic and
essential marital obligations of the Cesar Cruz, which are the grounds provided for
under Article 36 and Article 68of the Family Code. On 27th January, 2017, through
Judge Arturo Manuel Pampilo, RTC rendered its decision2 favoring the respondent,
Cesar Cruz

Now, THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT, Linda Manansala Cruz,

through counsel, respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Petitioner appellant and respondent - appelle are husband and wife, having
been legally married on January 5, 2007 in a civil wedding headed by Judge
Socorro. Lindas mother Agnes Manansala, brothers Larry, Leon and Lucio,
together with her sister Luzviminda were there. Cesars mother, Regina, and older
brothers Daniel and Claro with younger sisters Clarise Javier and Edna also
attended.

Linda and Cesar met on September 23, 2006 in a party in Tondo. She describes
that she drank too much. That night Linda and Cesat conversed about their lives
due to the fact that they share similarities about being in a broken family, both
stayed until 2 AM at the party, after that Cesar dropped her home. They became
close to each other, Cesar surprised Linda with chocolate and flowers. Cesar also
treated petitioner for dinner once a week. After two weeks of courting they bacame
boyfriend and girlfriend. Both would go to parks, movies, and the house of Cesars
mother.

1
Rollo, Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, p. 20
2
Rollo, Decision of the RTC Branch 26, p. 24

4
DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.
2018-80065
JD 1-1

On November 29, 2006 The Respondent - appellee proposed to marry the

petitioner-appellant, who agreed. Linda did not mind that he was financially
dependent to his mother and finished a two year vocational course on Computer
Science in STI, Manila, she knew that respondent did not have a job, and was just
laid off by his employer. They prepared a civil wedding headed by Judge Socorro
on January 5, 2007. After the wedding, the husband and wife lived in one of the
rooms at the house of the Cesars mother. The mother of Cesar did not mind that
they live there. While Linda gave little money for the bills and market expenses.

On May 2007, the Linda came home from work. Cesarss mother and other
siblings were in Nueva Ecija to attend to his grandfathers wake. She saw that the
house was unkept and dirty. There were lots of bottles of beer on the table and the
respondent was sleeping on sofa. Even though she was tired, she cooked and
cleaned After a while petitioner went to sleep when respondent went inside their
room and told her to get up to buy him more beer in a nearby sari-sari store,
petitioner answered him to buy it himself because he will drink it anyway. Cesar
raised his voice and slapped Linda on her face. She had no choice but to get up and
buy him three bottles of beer. The next morning, the husband apologized. He said
he was just very drunk and upset that his grandfather died.

Linda asked her husband if they could move from his mothers house and
proposed that she would pay for their rent espense. She got surprised when Cesar
said that he is not inutile. He claimes that his mothers house ie enough for the both
of them. The husband got angry, and held her arm tightly. He raised his voice and
said that he is not inutile. She begged her husband to remove his hand because it
will bruise, the husband did not do so.

On July 2007, Cesar came home drunk at 4:00 AM and ordered his wife to cook
food for him. Petitioner refused since she needs to rest because her shift runs until
12MN, and only got home at 2 AM. He then pulled his wife forcefully from bed to
the door which almost broke her hand. Cesar was stronger and bigger than Linda,
the husband was 58 while petitioner was only 50 tall. She prepared instant
noodles for him but as soon she gave it to her husband, poured the hot noodles to
her. Cesar told his wife that he has no respect for him because she earns money and
he does not. Petioner - appellant then prepared fried egg and rice for the
respondent-appellee.

5
DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.
2018-80065
JD 1-1

The Cesars mother comforted Linda and tried to convience the Cesar to be
kinder to his wife. She also convienced the him to find a job. She explained that his
son has Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) because of being in a broken
family.

On April 2009, Linda asked her husband to come with her to her grandmothers
wake. Cesar said that he was not feeling well. On that morning, she saw her
husband go out of the house and visit their neighbor, Arnold De Leon. He went
home at 1PM and smelled like gin. The husband said that Wala kang kwenta, puro
pagbunganga lang ang alam mong gawin. Akala mo kung sino ka, E kaya naman
tayo buhayin ni nanay! Cesar added that he hates her.

After sometime, Cesar took his mothers proposal. His mother paid for a rental
room near SM San Lazaro Manila. On December 2009, Linda bought Cesar
decent clothes and shoes to wear in his job interviews and eventually landed a job
on March 2010. She observed that her husband does not go to work regularly, one
time she visited his mother and to her surprise her husband was there, Cesar
claimed that it was his day off.

On June 2010, Linda confronted her if he was already terminated. Cesar got
angry, and answered that he was never employed. He just pretended that he went to
work so he can get away from Linda and her nagging. They fought, and Cesar
would hit his wife on her stomach. The wife suffered physical abuses from her
husband consistently. Cesar said that he had enough of her nagging, and forcing
him to work when his allowance from his mother was enough for the both of them.
Linda begged him to not leave, but he left and went to his mothers house.

According to the petitioner, her husband was not ready for having children.
When Luzviminda visited them with her three children, Cesar shouted because the
children were very noisy while watching television. She also confessed that her
husband only touched her once a month and was too quick.

In the span of nine years of marriage, respondent did not take any effort in order
to find a job, and perform his essential marital obligations. Instead, he kept on
battering his wife, and made her suffer from his being psychologically
incapacitated partner. A span of nine years proved that this is so grave and
permanent. Marriage entered by the petitioner and respondent can be categorized

6
DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.
2018-80065
JD 1-1

as void ab initio since the latter was psychologically incapacitated before the
wedlock.

THE ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN LINDA

MANANSALA CRUZ AND CESAR CRUZ IS VOID AB INITIO ON
THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
MANIFESTED BY THE RESPONDENT.

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT PSYCHOLOGICALLY

INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL
MARITAL OBLIGATIONS WHICH WOULD WARRANT A
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF HIS MARRIAGE WITH THE
PETITIONER.

ARGUMENTS

I. CESAR CRUZ IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED.

THUS, THE MARRIAGE SHOULD BE VOID AB INITIO.

Lindas 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, 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

7
DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.
2018-80065
JD 1-1

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, 566 SCRA 154, 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.

The respondent was examined with Defiance Disorder (ODD) because of

being in a broken family, whom Cesar Cruz suffered its symptoms and its
effects. The mother of Cesar Cruz testified that his conditions is grave and
incurable. Linda only knew about his condition after the marriage.

II. RESPONDENT IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND 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, Cesar was not able to comply with it, further, not only is heirresponsible
but he is psychological incapacitated due to Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD)
because of being in a broken family disabling him to comply with his marital
obligations. The husband had given his wife emotional, psychological and physical
damages through out the course of their marriage. He was dependent of his mother and
did not want to bore children in the future. He did not manifest help and support for his
wife, Linda.

8
DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.
2018-80065
JD 1-1

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)

RELIEF
VIEWED IN THE FOREGOING LIGHT, it is respectfully prayed that
the decision promulgated by the Regional Trial Court be reversed and set aside.
Other relief and remedies as are just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
August 20, 2018 Manila City Philippines.

SALAZAR SLYTHERIN LAW OFFICE

#367 Diagon Alley St., Manila Philippines
ATTY. RENZ MATTHEW I. CUNNINGHAM
Counsel for the Petitioner
PTR No. 7654321:1-11-01:B.C.
IBP No. 987443-12-21:B.C.
Roll No. 34566:32-32 Manila
World Trade Building, Binondo
Manila City

Copy furnished:
GODRIC GRIFFINDOR LAW OFFICE
#4 Privet Drive Little Whinging, Manila, Philippines
ATTY. ANNA MARIE B. DAYANGHIRANG
Counsel for the Respondent

PTR No. 1111111:1-11-01:B.C.

IBP No. 222222-22-22:B.C.
Roll No. 333333:3-33-33: Manila
#4 Privet Drive Little Whinging,

9
DAYANGHIRANG, ANNA MARIE B.
2018-80065
JD 1-1

Manila, Philippines

EXPLANATION

In view of time and manpower restrictions, the above Memorandum was

served via registered mail as personal service could not be availed of without
causing undue hardship to plaintiff.

ATTY. RENZ MATTHEW I. CUNNINGHAM

Counsel for the Petitioner

10