REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 143
MANILA CITY

JAQUELYN P. ATUTUBO,
Petitioner, Civil Case No. 11-456

- versus - For:
ANNULMENT OF
ANNESIR M. ATUTUBO, MARRIAGE
Respondent.
x-------------------x

M E M O R AN D U M

Petitioner JAQUELYN P. ATUTUBO by counsel, and in compliance

with the Honorable Courts Order dated April 25, 2016, which was received
by the undersigned counsel only on April 27, 2016, most respectfully
submits her Memorandum in support of her case:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE PROCEEDINGS

1. This is an action for declaration of nullity of marriage filed under

Article 36 of the Family Code which provides that:

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 EO 227).

This is governed by the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of

Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages promulgated on 15
March 2003.

1
2. Summons were served on respondent Annesir M. Atutubo as
evidenced by the Sheriffs return dated April 11, 2014 and pretrial of
the case was set thereafter.

3. Petitioner then presented her witnesses and documentary evidence

during trial and submitted her Formal Offer of Evidence on May 28,
2014. In an Order dated April 25, 2016, this Honorable Court admitted
Petitioners documentary evidence.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. Petitioner JAQUELYN P. ATUTUBO is Filipino, married and a

resident of 29 Halimuyak St., Tondo, Manila. Respondent Annesir M.
Atutubo on the other hand is Filipino, married and a resident of 47
Kamias St., Tondo, Manila. The contract for their marriage is attached
herein as Exhibit A. Together, the Petitioner and Respondent has a
son born out of their marriage named Juan Carlos P. Atutubo.

5. Sometime in 1988, the petitioner met respondent at the formers

canteen in Tondo. The two had an obvious and immediate attraction
with each other so they started going out for a few dates. They went
along pretty well as they clicked on almost every opinion.

6. Although the petitioner and the respondent only knew each other for a
quite a while and are yet to meet each others families, it did not take
too long for the said couple to realize that they really want to be
together forever as husband and wife, and so they immediately got
married in a Catholic ceremony celebrated at the San Marcelino
Church in Tondo, Manila on April 23, 1989.

7. Since the respondent is not yet that financially stable at the time of
their marriage, he decided that they will just live in his mothers house

2
 so they could save up the money they are to spend for rental expenses
should they rent a space for them alone. The petitioner had no choice
but to obliged as she respects his husbands decision.
8. At the time of this marriage, petitioner found out that respondent was
overly dependent on his mother as the latter dictates to respondent
what choices or decisions he should make and take. She became a
puppet in the house of her mother-in-law and decided to leave the
house. Petitioner gave birth to a son, namely, Juan Carlos P. Atutubo
thereafter. Respondent, however, still chose to live with his mother
rather than with petitioner and his child as according to him petitioner
was the one who left the house and so she should also be the one to
come back home.

9. Meanwhile, petitioner and respondent would always quarrel and

respondent physically, emotionally, financially and psychologically
abused her even in front of his mother. Respondent had two (2)
paramours openly and even introduced both of them to his child and
his mother who continued to tolerate his extra-marital affairs.

10.Consequently, petitioner filed a case for declaration of nullity of her

marriage to respondent, which case was raffled to the Regional Trial
Court Branch 143 and then to this Honorable Court upon its
constitution as a Family Court.

III. ISSUES

The sole issue of this case is whether or not Petitioners marriage to

respondent is valid considering that at the time of the celebration of the
marriage, respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his
essential marital and parental obligations.

3
 IV. DISCUSSION

Respondent Was Psychologically

Incapacitated To Comply With His
Essential Marital And Parental Obligations

Unrebutted evidence on record clearly established that at the time of

the celebration of the marriage, respondent was indeed psychologically
incapacitated to comply with his essential marital and parental obligations.
This was sufficiently proven by the judicial affidavit of Petitioner dated
September 2, 2014 as shown in Exhibit B.

Dr. Benedict Simpatiko, a clinical psychologist, also corroborated

petitioners statements, through his judicial affidavit dated September 3,
2014 as shown in Exhibit C. He stated that based on his clinical interviews
with respondent and two other people who knew him very well, the
respondent suffers from an anti-social and narcissistic personality disorder
which makes him unable to comply with his marital and parental
obligations; that the disorder existed even when respondent was still a child;
and that the chance of his recovering from the disorder is slim. He testified
that this disorder is evidenced by his aggressiveness, physical abuse,
alcoholism, inability to give financial support, persistent lying, inability to
sustain a monogamous relationship and that this disorder being recurrent and
pervasive is integrated in respondents personality, and that usually, the
person suffering therefrom refuses treatment. This statement is supported
formally by Dr. Simpatikos two (2) psychological reports dated July 16,
2016 and July 17, 2016,which interviews were conducted for the respondent
and his two (2) best friends, namely Tommy Hamun and Gabby Esguerra as
shown in Exhibits D and E. The testimony of expert witness is as
follows:
PROSECUTION: Was there any sign of mental illness on the part of Mr.
Atutubo Doctor?

4
 DR. SIMPATIKO: Yes attorney. According to my interviews with him
and his best friends, he seems to show signs of anti-social and narcissistic
personality disorder. His best friends are completely aware that his behavior
may be irrational and overwhelming as compared to a normal person.
PROSECUTION: How long has he had this disorder?
DR. SIMPATIKO: From my examination, it appears that he has had it
from a young age with the long-term habits he had related to this disorder.
PROSECUTION: What kind of habits does Mr. Atutubo have?
DR. SIMPATIKO: Apparently, he exhibits episodes of aggressiveness to
the point that he physically inflicts harm upon Mrs. Atutubo. He also has the
habit of consistent lying so as to evade certain responsibilities that he might
be obliged to do in the household. This makes him eschew the marriage as a
whole and thus cause him to engage in affairs and do excessive alcohol.
PROSECUTION: Is there a possible cure to his disorder?
DR. SIMPATIKO: Attorney, it would be very hard to remedy his disorder
since it is well-imbued in his personality. It might take many years to resolve
but treatment for such is not a guarantee that Mr. Atutubo will retain his
reformed habits in the long term.
PROSECUTION: Thank you Doctor and that is all your honor. (TSN,
September 3, 2014, p. 6)

Respondents son Juan Carlos P. Atutubo, in his judicial affidavit dated

September 4, 2014 as shown in Exhibit F, corroborated the testimony of
petitioner and was able to show respondents emotional absence in their
lives.
PROSECUTION: How often do you see your father?
JUAN CARLOS ATUTUBO: I do not see him that much. He might come
home once in a few days and not come back again for a long time.
PROSECUTION: What does he do when he does see you?
JUAN CARLOS ATUTUBO: He does not really acknowledge me. All he
does is say Ui then go straight to bed. In other times, he might get mad at
me since I would try to get his attention wherein he would say Wag mo ako
distorbohin! Busy nga ako!

5
 PROSECUTION: Is that all he does?
JUAN CARLOS ATUTUBO: He might also punch me if he gets angry.
I would cry and he just leaves me to my mother. (TSN, September 8, 2014,
p. 9)

The Failure Of Respondent Was Not

Just Mere Refusal Or Neglect But A Defect
In The Respondents Psychological Nature.

The essential marital obligations are principally set forth in Article 68 of

the Family Code which provides: The husband and wife are obligated to
live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual
help and support. They are likewise obligated to live together in a family
home. These obligations were not complied with by respondent because of
his inability to commit himself to the conjugal act, to the community of life
and love, to the rendering of mutual help, and the rearing of the offsprings.
The inability was due to a psychologic disorder called the anti-social and
narcissistic personality disorder.

Respondents incapacity due to his anti-social and narcissistic personality

disorder has been characterized by juridical antecedence, permanence, and
incurability. It was already occurring at the time of his marriage with
petitioner although not manifest. It has already become permanent and
incurable as such anti-social and narcissistic disorder- being among the most
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrates an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
This psychologic condition existed at the time the marriage is celebrated.

Indeed, respondents psychological incapacity, is not simply the

refusal or neglect by respondent to the marriage of his responsibilities and
duties, but a defect in his psychological nature which rendered him incapable
of performing such marital responsibilities and duties. The following

6
testimony is derived from the cross-examination which shows his lack of
interest for treatment:

PROSECUTION: Mr. Atutubo, are you aware that you have anti-
social and narcissistic personality disorder?
MR. ATUTUBO: No, I was not aware that I had this kind of
condition.
PROSECUTION: How would you explain the alleged acts of harm
that Ms. Atutubo accused you of doing?
MR. ATUTUBO: I always told her that I did not mean to do those
things and it was just my way of how I handle things since before we met.
PROSECUTION: Since you said that, how do you feel about these
acts that you have committed at the time you did them?
MR. ATUTUBO: I felt that they were the right things to do. I know I
may hurt people due to those things but I cannot thing of any possible way
of solving issues with my family.
PROSECUTION: Do you feel like you want to change whatever it is
you are doing now?
MR. ATUTUBO: Not at all. I do not think that my way of handling things
is a serious matter so hopefully others will understand. (TSN, September 30,
2014, p.10)

Anti-Social Personality Disorder Is Among

The Psychic Factors Possibly Giving Rise To
Ones Inability To Fulfill Marital Obligations

In a separate opinion cited by Justice Romero in Republic of the

Philippines, vs. Court of appeals and Roridel Olaviano Molina, (G.R. No.
108763 February 13, 1997), Fr. Green in an article in Catholic Mind goes on
to speak about some of the psychological conditions that might lead to the
failure of a marriage:
At stake is a type of constitutional impairment
precluding conjugal communion even with the best intentions
of the parties. Among the psychic factors possibly giving rise to

7
 his or her inability to fulfill marital obligations are the
following: (1) antisocial personality with its fundamental lack
of loyalty to persons or sense of moral values; (2)
hyperesthesia, where the individual has no real freedom of
sexual choice; (3) the inadequate personality where personal
responses consistently fallshort of reasonable expectations.

(Zwack , Joseph P. Annulment, A Step-by-Step Guide.)

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.
From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the
following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the
Family Code were handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar,
among others:

xxxx

(2) 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. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological not physical. although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence
must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was
mentally or physically ill to such an extent that the person could
not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing
them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although
no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to
limit the application of the provision under the principle of
ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be
identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating
nature explained. Expert evidence may be given qualified
psychiatrist and clinical psychologists.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of

the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that
the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I
do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable
at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such
moment, or prior thereto.

8
 (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not
related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or
employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to
cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to
procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential
obligation of marriage.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the

disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as
root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity
or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill
will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling
factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the
personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person
from really accepting and thereby complying with the
obligations essential to marriage.

(7) 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. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family
Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code
of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which
provides:

The following are incapable of contracting

marriage: Those who are unable to assume the
essential obligations of marriage due to causes of
psychological nature.

Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family

Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of
our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such
harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to
decision of such appellate tribunal. Ideally subject to our law
on evidence what is decreed as canonically invalid should
also be decreed civilly void.

In conclusion, Justice Romero added that: This is one instance

where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the Family Code

9
provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given persuasive
effect. Here, the State and the Church while remaining independent,
separate and apart from each other shall walk together in synodal cadence
towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family
as the inviolable base of the nation.

It would be great injustice to petitioner for this court to give a much

restrictive interpretation of the law and compel the petitioner to live with a
husband who for practical purposes ceased to exist for fourteen (14) years.

V. PRAYER

PRESCINDING FROM THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

prayed that Petitioners marriage to respondent be declared null and void ab
initio; and that the judgment declaring the nullity of Petitioners marriage to
respondent be entered in the Book of Marriages of the Civil Registry of
Muntinlupa City.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.

23 May 2017, Muntinlupa City.

Brixton Vincent P. Reyes

Mago Reyes Rufino Law Offices
Roll No. 1234
PTR No. 468934
IBP No. 122222

Copies Furnished:

ANNESIR M. ATUTUBO
47 Kamias Street
Tondo, Manila City
(RR No. ____________)

10
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
(RR No. ____________)

ACP SHIRLEY G. PASCUAL

Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila City Hall
Metro Manila, Philippines
(by personal service)

EXPLANATION
(On Service By Registered Mail)

Petitioner, by counsel, in compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully states that in view of the
distance between the undersigned counsels office and of the Office of the
Solicitor General, and of the respondents residence, copies of the
MEMORANDUM dated 23 May 2017 were served by registered mail upon
the said parties, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 13 of the said Rules.

Brixton Vincent P. Reyes

Mago Reyes Rufino Law Offices
Roll No. 1234
PTR No. 468934
IBP No. 122222

VI. CERTIFICATION OF NON COLLUSION OF THE PARTIES

This is to certify that after due investigation, there appears no

sufficient evidence to suggest that there was a collusion between
the Petitioner JACQUELYN P. ATUTUBO and Respondent
ANNESIR M. ATUTUBO over the filing of the foregoing
annulment case (Civil Case No. 11-456).

ACP SHIRLEY G. PASCUAL

Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila City Hall
Metro Manila, Philippines

11
 VII. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING

I, JACQUELYN P. ATUTUBO, of legal age, after having been duly sworn

in accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am a plaintiff in the above-stated case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and
correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of
documents and records in my possession;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;

5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;

6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been

filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Court.

JACQUELYN P. ATUTUBO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of May

2017 at Manila, Philippines affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate No. 45678231 issued on 26th day of January 2017 at Manila City.

Ferdinand Ramos Jr.

Notary Public
Manila City
PTR. No. 0010983/01.03.16/Manila
IBP No.753926/12.22.14/Manila
Admin. Matter No. 2016-1/Until Dec. 31,
2018
Lawyers Roll No. 53143
MCLE Compliance No. 113-4562/11.11.15

Doc. No. 57 ;
Page No.2 ;

12
Book No. 2 ;
Series of 2017.

13