REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH ____
MANILA

JUANA GO– DELA CRUZ,

JDRC Case No. ___________
Petitioner,
(for: Declaration of Nullity Under
Article 36 of the Family Code)
-versus –

JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.

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

ANSWER

Respondent, JUAN DELA CRUZ, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully avers the following in response to the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity.

1. ¶2 is admitted insofar as his personal circumstances are concerned.

2. ¶16.2 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Respondent did have his
reasons for getting angry at the Petitioner and that it was the latter who had locked
herself up in the bathroom.

3. ¶19.2 is DENIEDinsofar as the Respondent’ssupposed act of forcing the Petitioner to

drink the water is concerned.

4. ¶21 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had sexual liaisons with
other women is concerned.
 5. ¶22 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Petitioner had requested the
Respondent to engage in sexual intercourse with her.

6. ¶24.1 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had sexual intercourse
with his masseur is concerned.

7. ¶25 is ADMITTED, insofar as the heated altercation is concerned. But it is averred that
the Respondent was likewise the victim of battery inflicted by the Petitioner.

8. ¶25.1 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being as follows:

8.1. Petitioner and Respondent were inside their car, parked along Roxas Boulevard.
Petitioner unnecessarily and unexpectedly raised the issue regarding the
Respondent’schildren. Specifically, the Petitioner expressed her desire to send
them away from the family home. Petitioner then used profane and derogatory
language to describe the said children, cursing their very existence.The
Respondent tolerated the Petitioner’sbehaviour for five (5) minutes, upon the
lapse of which he demanded the latter to desist. In response, the Petitioner
slapped and punched the Respondent, for which reason the latter was prompted
to strangle her. However, the Petitioner bit the Respondent’s wristand was thus
able to escape.

8.2. The Petitioner ran away from the car and the Respondent followed her,
demanding that she return. As the Petitioner ran, she turned her head to voice
her refusal. This prevented her from seeing the light post ahead, which she ran
into and hit her head. Forced into a stop by the pain, the Petitioner was quickly
taken by the Respondent and brought to a hospital.

9. ¶27 on the consultation with Dr. Navarro is ADMITTED. But the Respondent DENIES
that it is sufficient to establish his supposed psychological incapacity. The Respondent
DENIES that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is grave enough to prevent him from
complying with the essential marital obligations.

10. The Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defense that the petition FAILS TO
STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.
 10.1. A cursory reading of the petition would show that it fails to allege the element of
INCURABILITY. In the case of Santos v. CA, the Supreme Court enumerated the
three requirements of psychological incapacity: (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability.1

10.2. While ¶29 alleges juridical antecedence and ¶32 alleges gravity, NOWHERE IN
THE PETITION IS IT ALLEGED THAT THE SUPPOSED ROOT CAUSE OF
THERESPONDENT’S PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS PERMANENT OR
INCURABLE.

10.3. The Respondent thus respectfully prays that the petition be dismissed for
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition be dismissed for failure to state a
cause of action.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

_____________, Philippines, __Date__.

VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Respondent
14thFloor Philamlife Tower 8
767 Paseo de Roxas
Paseo de Roxas, Makati City
Tel. No. 702-5930 to 02
Email: vloffice@gmail.com

By:
CHRISTOPHER JOHN VIRTUCIO
Roll No. 37489
IBP No. 457133/1-3-2014/Manila
PTR No. 32414131/1-3-2014/Manila

310 Phil. 21 (1995).

1
Copy hereof received ______ this _________ day of ___________, ___________

JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Petitioner

VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Respondent

COPY FURNISHED:

JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM

LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Petitioner
27thFloor Trafalgar Bldg.
888 H.V. Dela Costa St., Makati City
Tel. No. 800-0001 to 04
Email: firmjek@jeklaw.com.ph

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Makati City

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Manila City
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH __
MANILA CITY

Plaintiff
Civil Case No. 22320-13-4724
For: ANNULMENT OF TITLE
Versus

Defendants
x------------------------------x

ANSWER
(With COUNTERCLAIM)

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully states that:

Admissions / Denials
1. The defendant admits the contents of paragraph 1 and 2 insofar as the plaintiff’s and
defendant’s personal circumstances are concerned;

2. The defendant strongly denies the allegations in paragraph 3 and 4 of the complaint,
the truth of the matter is that Mr. X, of whom the plaintiff entered a contract with as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the land in dispute attached in the
complaint as Annex “A”, is the defendant’sbrother who is neitherthe owner of the said
land nor has the right nor authority to dispose of the said land. Given that his
predecessor has no right to dispose of the land in dispute, the plaintiff does not have
any grounds whatsoever to submit Notice of Adverse Claims in relation to such
property;
3. The defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 5, 6 and 11 of the said complaint for
he is still the owner of the land in dispute and has not yet transferred the same to
anyone. The defendant never executed the said Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
theplaintiff nor of anyone. In fact, he was not even a party to such contract but his
brother, Mr. X. With that, it was just right for himto refuse the plaintiff’s demand to
have duplicate copy of the title for the eventual transfer to his name;

4. The defendant admits conditionally the allegations in paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the

complaint. He, as the rightful owner of the land in dispute and having the authority to
do whatever as he pleased with such property provided the same is not contrary to law,
subdivided it and move to have separate titles thereto thus have the original title
cancelled. He also introduced some improvements thereto that led the assessed value of
the property for more than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50, 000.00). In consequence of
today’seconomic crisis, He also decided to have the other portion of the property open
for rentals and have received profits thereto. All of these activities were faithfully
undertaken to by him as the rightful owner of the land subject of this litigation;

Counterclaim

1. The defendant suffered besmirched reputation, mental anguish, and sleepless nights
due to the filling of the baseless complaints by theplaintiff and claimed Fifty Thousand
Pesos (Php 50,000.00) by way of moral damages.

2. He engages the services of an attorney at law to protect his interestand incurred Thirty
Thousand Pesos (Php 30,000.00) as attorney’sfees and Ten Thousand Pesos
(Php10,000.00) as cost of litigation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered defendant, most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that judgment be rendered:

a) Dismissing the complaint for utter lack of merit and cause of action.
b) Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant moral damages, attorney’s fees and
cost of litigation as prayed for in the preceding paragraph, and
 c) And such other relief as may be deemed just and equitable under the
circumstance.

….date, Aparri, Cagayan, Philippines

(Signed)
(Name of the Counsel)
Counsel for the Defendant
Rm. 123, Bea Building, Dominga St., Malate, Manila
Roll No. 12345
IBP No, 12345/1-3-2010/Pasay City

PTR No. 12345/1-3-2010/Pasay City

MCLE COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE NO. X-1234567
09181234567
abc.123@yahoo.com

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Manila) Sc.
x---------------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, (Name of Defendant), Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of 5678 Donada St., Pasay
City, Metro Manila, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and say:

1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of this Answer with Counterclaim;

3. I have read and understood the contents of the same and that the allegations stated
therein are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and based on the
authentic records;
 4. That I hereby certify that at the time of the filing of this complaint , I have not
commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of our knowledge,
no such action is pending or was terminated in the Supreme Court, similar action
has been filed or is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification has
been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 19th day of September
10, 2017, City of Manila, Philippines.

(Name of Defendant)
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this _____________, by _____________

who exhibited to me (his/her) Community Tax Certificate No. _____________ issued at
_____________, Philippines on _____________.

Notary Public
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

Copy furnished:

(Name of the Counsel)

Counsel for the Plaintiff
(Office/Firm Address)
IBP No.
PTR No.
Roll No.
MCLE Compliance No.
(Contact Number)
(E-mail Address)

Explanation
This certifies that personal service was not resorted to for the reason that due to time
and manpower constraints, the same is impracticable.