Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

MARIA VICTORIA SOCORRO LONTOC-CRUZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

CA GR CV No. 201988
-versus- For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage

NILO SANTOS CRUZ,

Respondent-Appellee.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Pursuant to the

Notice of this Honorable Court,

PETITIONER-APPELLANT

MARIA VICTORIA SOCORRO LONTOC-CRUZ,

By counsel, most respectfully submit her

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

1
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Philippine Jurisprudence Page

Antonio vs Reyes, GR No. 155800, March 10, 2006 14

Azcueta vs Republic and CA, GR No. 180668, May 26, 17
2009
Camacho-Reyes vs Reyes, GR No. 185286, August 18, 18
2010 5-7
Marcos vs Marcos, 398 Phil. 840 (2000) 7
Republic vs CA and Molina, 310 Phil. 21 (1995) 7
Republic vs Dagdag. GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009 17
Te vs Te, GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009
Tsoi vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 119190, January 16,
1997

Books Page

Herrera, Remedial Law, Volume V (1999), pp 804-805 18

Philippine Statutes Page

Family Code of the Philippines 4

2
 SUBJECT INDEX

I. Table of Authorities 2

II. Assignment of Errors 4

III. Statement of the Case 4-6

IV. Summary of Proceedings 7-8

V. Statement of Material Dates 8

VI. Appealed Decision 8-9

VII. Statement of Facts 9-14

VIII. Issues 14

IX. Arguments 14-18

18-19
X. Reliefs

XI. Appendices 20

3
 II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I. The Trial Court committed reversible

error in dismissing the Petition on the
ground that neither of the parties are 14-16
psychologically incapacitated to comply
their essential marital obligations.

II. The totality of evidence presented is

adequate to sustain that the Respondent-
Appellee is psychologically incapacitated 16-17
to comply with the essential marital
obligations.

III. The present case sufficiently satisfies the 18

guidelines in Molina.

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from the Orders of the Court a quo dismissing the
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage between Petitioner-Appellant
vs Defendant-Appellee on the ground that neither of the parties are suffering
from psychological incapacity.

The case stemmed from the once unbreakable happy love story of
petitioner-appellant and respondent-appellee that eventually turned into a
mess, for the tangled circumstances dominated, and made the perceived
unbreakable as breakable. The blaming part already ceased as both reach the
ends of their lines, and knuckled under, as there is no longer to save.

In this case, Petitioner-Appellant contends that the Respondent-

Appellee is suffering from “Inadequate Personality Disorder”, related to
masculine strivings associated with unresolved oedipal complex; while, she
herself was found to be suffering from a “Personality Disorder of the Mixed
Type (Histrionic, Narcissistice with Immaturity.”

The above-mentioned disorders are considered juridical, permanent and

incurable as nature, as for Marivi’s part, the root causes were the
overindulgence and over attention of her parents in a prolonged manner,
carried over to adult adjustments. On the part of Nilo, his negative
identification and resentments towards his father and close attachments to his
mother, continued by his long-time maid, to the point of an oedipal situation

4
led to his inadequacy, along masculine strivings, with difficult assertions of his
authority and power.

Under the Family Code of the Philippines, 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.

In particular, the Supreme Court laid down in Republic of the

Philippines vs Court of Appeals and Molina1, stringent guidelines in the
interpretation and application of psychological incapacity, to wit:

(1) 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. This is rooted in the fact that both
our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the
family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing
it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable,"
thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and
marriage are to be "protected" by the state.

The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and
emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.

(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 psychically 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 (Salita v. Magtolis, 233 SCRA
100, 108), nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness
and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by
qualified psychiatrists 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.

(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

1
Santos v. Molina, 310 PHIL. 21 (1995)

5
 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, not
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.

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to

71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221
and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-
complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by
evidence and included in the text of the decision.

(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. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

In more recent jurisprudence, we have observed that notwithstanding the

guidelines laid down in Molina, there is a need to emphasize other perspectives
as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of
nullity under Article 36.2 Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori
assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. In
regard to psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage, it is
trite to say that no case is on "all fours" with another case. The trial judge must
take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as
much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial
court.3 With the advent of Te v. Te,4t he Court encourages a reexamination of
jurisprudential trends on the interpretation of Article 36 although there has
been no major deviation or paradigm shift from the Molina doctrine.

The above-mentioned actuations of the Respondent-Appellee, and the

Petitioner-Appellant were both existing prior to, and during the solemnization
of their marriage, and continuing until the date of their separation, and that
such are obvious manifestations of incurable, severe psychological disorder,
rendering both of them to be psychologically unfit to assume his essential
marital obligations, tainting the validity of marriage right at its very inception.

2
Antonio v Reyes, GR 155800, March 10, 2006
3
Republic v Dagdag, GR No. 109975, February 9, 2001
4
Te v Te, GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009

6
 IV. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

1. On October 11, 2017, Petitioner-Appellant, MARIA

VICTORIA SOCORRO LONTOC-CRUZ5 instituted the instant case
before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa by filing a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against NILO SANTOS CRUZ6,
docketed as “Civil Case No. 05-095”.

2. Thereafter, the Petitioner-Appellant on October 17, 2017

furnished copies of Petition to the Office of the Solicitor General and Office
of the City Prosecutor, together with a COVER LETTER, stating that such
case was raffled at RTC Muntinlupa, Branch 207. In addition, Petitioner-
Appellant subsequently filed a MANIFESTATION in the assigned court,
stating that he she has already furnished the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL and OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR, informing the
same that an annulment case was filed at RTC Muntinlupa, Branch 207.

3. After complying with the jurisdictional requirements in the

Petition for Nullity of Marriage, the Solicitor-General entered its appearance,
and allowed the City Prosecutor of Manila to appear on behalf of the State
through an ENTRY OF APPEARANCE and DEPUTAZION LETTER,
which were both November 17, 2017.

4. The Respondent-Appellee filed his ANSWER on November 27,

2017 claiming that he was madly in love with Marivi; that at the start of their
relationship, Marivi would exhibit negative personality traits which they
overlooked; that he believed that both he and Marivi were suffering from
psychological incapacity; and that he was not singularly responsible for the
breakdown of their marriage.

5. On December 7, 2017., upon the Motion of Petitioner-Appellant,

the collusion investigation was conducted by the assigned fiscal, ACP NIKKI
MAE CELESTINO.7

6. An ORDER dated January 26, 2017, was thereafter issued by

ACP CELESTINO, rendering that there exists no collusion between parties.

5
Also hhereinafter referred to as “MARIVI” for brevity
6
Also Hereinafter referred to as “NILO” for brevity
7
Hereinafter referred to as “ACP CELESTINO” for brevity

7
 7. The case was then set for a PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE and
PRE-TRIAL on April 12, 2018 and May 3, 2018, respectively, whereby both
parties submitted and have their respective evidence be marked.

8. Thereafter, various settings for the presentation of evidence of for

both parties were set.

9. After the trial, the Honorable Executive Judge of Muntinlupa

issued a DECISION dated October 17, 2018 declaring the marriage between
the Petitioner-Appellant and Respondent-Appelle is not a void marriage.

10.The dispositive portion of said DECISION thus said:

“Upon the view we take of this case, thus, this Court believes that the protagonists in this case
are in reality simply unwilling to work out a solution for each other's personality differences, and
have thus become overwhelmed by feelings of disappointment or disillusionment toward one
another. Sadly, a marriage, even if unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

11.On October 22, 2018, Petitioner-Appellant filed a MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, which was subsequently denied.

12. Thereafter, NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed on December 14,

2018.

V. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

13. On January 28, 2019, Petitioner-Appellant, through counsel,

received an ORDER from this Honorable Court dated January 22, 2019,
directing her to file her APPELLANT’S BRIEF within 45 days from receipt
thereof. The last day of the period given to file the Brief fall on March 14,
2019.

14. Hence, this Brief is filed on time.

VI. APPEALED DECISION

15. The dispositive portion of the appealed ORDER dated October

17, 2018 states:

“Upon the view we take of this case, thus, this Court believes that the protagonists in
this case are in reality simply unwilling to work out a solution for each other's

8
 personality differences, and have thus become overwhelmed by feelings of
disappointment or disillusionment toward one another. Sadly, a marriage, even if
unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

VII. STATEMENT OF FACTS

16. Marivi met Nilo when she was 22 years old, while the latter was
28 years old, sometime in March 1986. They became steady sometime in
August of the same year.

17. Nilo, whose job was then in Hong Kong, prodded Marivi to
marry him so she should join him there soonest.

18. They thereafter got married in a civil ceremony on October 21,

1986, followed by a church wedding on February 8, 1987.

19. They had two (2) sons: Antonio Manuel, born on April 25, 1988
and Jose Nilo, born on September 9, 1992.

Marivi’s Version

20. When they were still going steady, Nilo would only spend
Saturdays and Sundays with her and devote the weekdays to partying with
his friends;

21. Even after their engagement, Nilo would still meet other women
and accept invitations to beauty pageants and cocktails.

22. Nilo was not the type who would kiss passionately. He would not
engage in foreplay during sex, but wished only to satisfy himself. He would
engage in anal sex and would only stop when she complained that it was
painful; and he would thereafter sleep, leaving her feeling "used," and that
Nilo was impulsive, daring, and adventurous.

23. She also claimed that Nilo would habitually come home late;
and, that Friday nights were Nilo's boys' night out. Unless she would ask him

9
to take her out on a date, Nilo would not do so, and that Nilo would call her
a "nagger" even if she was merely asking him to come home early.

24.Marivi further narrated that Nilo would engage in extramarital

affairs, and few months into their marriage, Nilo had an affair with an
unmarried female officemate. Nilo ended the affair only after she (Marivi)
threatened to tell his employer/supervisor.

25.Nilo had another affair a few weeks after the birth of their second
son. When confronted with his womanizing and made to choose between her
and the children or the other women, Nilo replied that he was
"confused,"which prompted her to leave and stay in Cebu with her parents;
and that she heard from her friends that while she was in Cebu, Nilo was
living a bachelor's life.

26.Marivi added that she eventually reconciled with Nilo but despite
the reconciliation, Nilo never really changed, and that he remained
indifferent, insensitive, and unappreciative. According to Marivi, she would
instead call up her parents and sisters to talk about their family problems.

27. While he (Nilo) told people that he was proud of her, he never
gave her the emotional, psychological, and physical support she needed. She
felt like she was no more than a mayordoma to him, and that they were just
"housemates." Nilo would come home late on weekdays and preferred to go
out with his friends. Their quarrels were frequent and their conversations
were superficial.

28. Nilo would rather talk about himself, instead of asking Marivi
about her day or about their children. He was controlling and domineering,
and refused to consider her suggestions; he would not want his money
mingled with her (Marivi's) money.

29.Nilo would shell out money when he wanted to buy things, but
would make excuses when it came to Marivi's suggestion for a family
vacation. Marivi also claimed that Nilo had no sense of companionship with
their children; and that Nilo even told their son that their brand new house
was everything to him.

10
 30.Marivi was moreover bothered by Nilo's effeminate ways. He was
vain and would have weekly "beauty" treatments. Furthermore, they no long
had sex after the birth of their second son. While they tried to have sex twice,
Nilo failed to have an erection. After that, Nilo would refuse to have sex with
her which made her (Marivi) question his sexual orientation, so much so that
Nilo physically hurt her when she questioned his virility.

31.Marivi's father, Manuel, likewise stated that Marivi would call

them up for help because Nilo had hurt her during the couple's quarrel. Their
marriage was not harmonious due to Marivi's youth and her unfamiliarity
with Nilo's personality and family values. He considered Nilo only as a
provider, not as a husband and a good father to his sons.

32.Marivi's younger sister, Margarita Ledesma8 who lived for four

years with Nilo and Marivi, claimed to have witnessed how lonely Marivi
was. She alleged that Nilo was absent when Marivi gave birth to their second
son; that Nilo was short-tempered when driving; and that the couple would
often fight because Nilo would always come home late or because Marivi
suspected Nilo of infidelity. Margarita believed that Nilo did not really want
to save the marriage, although he told her that he loves Marivi and the
children

33.The parties did not acquire any property of substantial value

during their marriage.

Nilo’s Version

34. In his ANSWER, Nilo acknowledged his contribution to the

breakdown of the marriage because his job required him to come home late,
his inability to sexually perform adequately, his failure to be the "ideal
husband," and because he had had extramarital affairs in the years 1992,
2002, and 2006. At the same time, Nilo insisted that Marivi also contributed
to the collapse of their union.

35.According to Nilo, Marivi would always want to know his

companions and whereabouts; would demand information about his female
acquaintances; and would even call up his workplace to ask where he was.

8
Hereinafter referred to here as “Margarita” for brevity

11
Moreover, her conceit and her "prima donna" attitude embarrassed him.
Marivi would order him to act in accordance with their stature in life, and
would demand that he instruct his office staff to accord her special treatment
as Hewlett Packard's "first lady" during the time that he was Hewlett
Packard's President. Marivi would also instruct their housemaids to call him
"sefiorito;" and she would make a "big deal" out of her being a "mestiza,"
and would think of herself a "trophy wife.

36.Nilo claimed that Marivi was "unappreciative" of him, had a

misdirected sense of self-entitlement, and would complain if she did not get
her own way, as she was used to, she being her father's favorite daughter;
Marivi did not even care about discussing family finances with him as long
as she got what she wanted. She also had a violent temper and would hurl
things at him during their fights; that she would blame him for everything,
and would keep on reciting his past mistakes. Marivi did not understand the
demands of his job, and unfairly compared his work to her father's job, the
operation of which was limited to a single area, a compound in a mine site in
Cebu. He explained that the multinational companies he then worked for
required him to work beyond the normal office hours because he has to meet
"sales quotas in millions of dollars," entertain people from different
headquarters, and meet with different clients from areas far from his
residence.

37.Worse, Nilo was turned off by Marivi's act of broadcasting to her

whole clan his inadequacies during their intimate sexual relations, which
began after he witnessed Marivi giving birth to their first child. When he
confided to Marivi about this, she instead accused him of having another
affair. Since then, he did not feel any sexual excitement and attraction toward
her when they were together. Instead of discussing the problem with him
candidly, she accused him of being gay. Nilo stated that the last time they
had sex was in 1997 or in 1998.

Clinical Findings

38. The psychiatric report of Drs, Cecilla Villegas, psychiatrist, and

Dr. Ruben Encarnacio, clinical psychologist, stated that:
“The root cause of the above clinical conditions, on the part of Marivi Cruz, were the
overindulgence and over attention of her parents, in a prolonged manner, carried over to adult
adjustments. On the part of Nilo Cruz, his negative identification and resentments towards his
father and close attachments to his mother, continued by his long-time maid, to the point of an
oedipal situation led to his inadequacy, along masculine strivings, with difficult assertions of his
authority and power.

12
 The above clinical conditions existed prior [to] marriage but became manifest only after the
celebration due to marital stresses and demands. Both are considered as permanent in nature,
because they started early in their developmental stage, and therefore became so deeply
engrained into their personality structures. Both are considered grave in degree, because they
hampered, interfered and disrupted their normal functioning related to heterosexual adjustments

39. According to Dr. Villegas, both parties could not tolerate each
other’s weaknesses and that the incapacities of the parties are grave because
they preferred to satisfy their own needs rather than to give in to the other's
needs.

40. Dr. Encarnacion supported Dr. Villegas' diagnosis. On the basis

of Nilo's five-to-six sessions and Marivi's eight bi-weekly psychotherapy
sessions with him, Dr. Encarnacion concluded that there was no chance of a
successful marriage in a dysfunctional union when there is double
psychological incapacity.

41.He categorically stated that Nilo was incapable of being a good

husband and a good father. He is suffering from “Inadequate Personality
Disorder related to masculine strivings associated with unresolved
oedipal complex”. Nilo lacked an individual coherent identity and instead
went by the standards of general society, which is driven by the desire to gain
material wealth, power, and control.

42.As for Marivi, Dr. Encarnacion found that she exhibited

"Histrionic Personality Behaviors and Features" as manifested by her
impressionistic speech, her exaggerated expression of emotions, and her
suggestibility.

43.The parties above-narrated actuations, existing prior to, and

during the solemnization of their marriage, and continuing until the date
of their separation are obvious manifestations of incurable, severe
psychological disorder, rendering him to be psychologically unfit to
assume his essential marital obligations, tainting the validity of marriage
right at its very inception.

44.It is therefore evident that both parties are psychologically

incapacitated to comply with his essential obligations of marriage. Thus, they
failed to:

(a) observe mutual love, respect which are basic postulates of

marriage;
(b) to render mutual help and support for assistance in the necessities,
both temperal and spiritual, which are essential to sustain the
marriage; and

13
 (c) to comply with his essential marital obligations to establish and
support a family

45. The parties psychological incapacity is referred to as “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 which, as so expressed
by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live
together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.

VIII. ISSUES

I. Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in

dismissing the Petition on the ground that the Petitioner-
Appellant and Respondent-Appellee are not psychologically
incapacitated to comply his essential marital obligations.

II. Whether or not totality of evidence presented is adequate to

sustain that the parties are both psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations.

III. Whether or not the present case sufficiently satisfies the

guidelines in Molina.

IV. Whether or not the trial court committed an error in

disregarding the testimonies of the expert witness presented by
the petitioner

IX. ARGUMENTS

I. The trial court committed

reversible error in dismissing
the Petition on the ground that
both parties are not
psychologically incapacitated to
comply with their essential
marital obligations.

---------------------------------------

46. Philippine jurisprudence dictates that psychological incapacity

must be more than just a difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of
14
 some marital obligations, it is essential that they must be shown to be
incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness, existing at the
time of the celebration of marriage.9

47. Respondent-Appellee was found to be incapable of being a

good husband and a good father. He lacked an individual coherent identity
and instead went by the standards of general society, which is driven by the
desire to gain material wealth, power, and control. Nilo did not like close
relationships and was incapable of forming some; his social anxiety,
associated with paranoid fears, was manifested by excessive vanity. Nilo
projected an image of a wealthy, successful, handsome man surrounded by
women, in none of whom, however, he was interested in a long-term sexual
relationship; he saw himself as a performer-provider and was disinterested
in spending quality time with his family, in carrying on conversations with
members of his family, insensitive, intolerant, and demanding

48. Dr. Encarnacion attributed respondent's psychological

disorder to his childhood, in which he did not have fond memories of tender
moments and vacation times with his family. Nilo grew up very close to his
mother who always listened to his complaints and with whom he
sympathized, hence his unresolved oedipal issues; even as he patterned his
masculinity strivings after his stingy father, the family provider, but whom
he nonetheless described as "unappreciative, undemonstrative, and quite
materialistic."

49. At the age of 18, when his parents migrated to Canada and left
him in the Philippines, he then lost his role models, incapacitating him from
creating his own identity. Thus, when he began working at the age of 21,
he imbibed the values of his workplace, where feelings and emotional
discussions were absent, factors that nonetheless somehow worked to his
advantage in his job. Dr. Encarnacion opined that Nilo's incapacity was his
"rigidity," which drove him into imposing his family upbringing on his mvn
family, instead of adjusting to the modem family setup, i.e., that the modem
father should take on new roles and be part of family activities where his
family needs him to be, e.g. taking the children to the pediatrician or to the
park, camping with the family, or being with them in church, instead of
strictly confining himself to being a provider.

50. These manifestations of incapacity to comply or assume his

marital obligations were linked to medical or clinical causes by an expert
witness with more than 20 years’ experience from the field of psychology
in general, and psychological incapacity, in particular.

9
Navarro, Jr v Cecilio-Navarro, GR No. 162049, April 13, 2007

15
 51. Such manifestations are incurable and permanent, as it started
early in respondent-appellee’s personality structure. It is severe or grave in
degree, because it hampered and interfered with his normal functioning.

52. Based also on the above-clinical data, history, documents,

collateral interview, and psychological assessment report, it is of the
opinion of the expert that Marivi is suffering from Histrionic Personality
Behaviors and Features, as manifested by her impressionistic speech, her
exaggerated expression of emotions, and her suggestibility. He stated that
Marivi's "inflexibility" consisted in her expecting a high standard of
faithfulness from all men as exemplified by her dad, who was also very
devoted to her mother. However, because dissatisfied and frustrated by her
actual marital situation, she sought attention, externalized blame, displayed
anger, mistrust, resentment, and self-indulgence

53. According to Dr. Villegas, both parties could not tolerate each
other’s' weaknesses and that the incapacities of the parties are grave
because they preferred to satisfy their own needs rather than to give in to
the other's need

54. Indeed both parties, being psychologically incapacitated,

cannot assume the essential marital obligation of living together, observing
love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable
to make everyday decision without getting advice from others.

55. In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s

psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of
families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who
cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from
remaining in that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of
physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or
addiction, and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic
personality anomaly. Let it be noted that in Article 36, there is no marriage
to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning.
To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will
simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage. 10

II. The totality of evidence

presented is adequate to sustain
that the Respondent-Appellee is
both parties are psychologically
incapacitated to comply with

10
Azcueta vs Republc and CA, G, R No. 180668, May 26, 2009

16
 the essential marital
obligations.

---------------------------------------

56. In Marcos v Marcos11, it was held that there is no requirement

that the respondent spouse be personally examined by a physician or
psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of
marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the
totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity. In this case, both parties subjected themselves to
an examinations; hence, the more weight their respective psychological
incapacity should be given. The expertise of the witnesses who conducted
the examination were acknowledged also by the trial court; thereby, there’s
no reason as to why their testimonies will not be considered.

57. It should be noted that apart from petitioner-appellant’s

interview with the psychologist, she also testified in court on the facts upon
which the psychiatric report was based. When a witness testified under oath
before the lower court, and was cross-examined, she thereby presented
evidence in a form of testimony.12

58. Petitioner-Appellant’s testimony corroborated with that of her

witnesses who are close friends of both parties. Dr. Villegas and Dr.
Encarnacion both likewise testified in court to elaborate the report and fully
explain the link between the manifestations of and petitioner appellant’s
and respondent-appellee’s psychological incapacity and the psychological
disorder itself.

59. Verily, the totality of the evidence must show a link, medical
or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the
psychological disorder itself. If other evidence showing that a certain
condition could possibly result from an assumed state of facts existed in the
record, the expert opinion should be admissible and be weighed as an aid
for the court in interpreting such other evidence on the causation.13

60. Indeed, an expert opinion on psychological incapacity should

be considered as conjectural or speculative and without any probative value
only in the absence of other evidence to establish causation. The expert’s
findings under such circumstances would not constitute hearsay that would
justify their exclusion as evidence.14

11
Marcos v Marcos, 398 PHIL. 840 (2000)
12
Tsoi v Court of Appeals, GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997
13
Herrera, Remedial Law, Volume V (1999), pp. 804-805.
14
Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes, supra, note 15, at 487

17
 III. The present case satisfies the
guideline in Molina.

---------------------------------------

61. Petitioner-Appellant sufficiently overcome the burden of

proving psychological incapacity of her spouse, and her own incapacity,
also. Her testimony and the testimonies of her witnesses, and the findings
of an expert witnesses were sufficient evidence to hold that they are both
found to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage.

62. As in all civil matters, the petitioner in an action for declaration

of nullity under Article 36 must be able to establish the cause of action with
a preponderance of evidence. However, since the action cannot be
considered as a non-public matter between private parties, but is impressed
with State interest, the Family Code likewise requires the participation of
the State, through the prosecuting attorney, fiscal, or Solicitor General, to
take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that
evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Thus, even if the petitioner is able
establish the psychological incapacity of respondent with preponderant
evidence, any finding of collusion among the parties would necessarily
negate such proofs.15

63. The root causes of Petitioner-Appellant’s and Respondent-

Appellee’s psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically
identified in the Complaint. Such were proven by an expert witness.

64. The psychological incapacity of both parties were established

to have existed before the celebration of their marriage. His reliance and
dependence unto her mother for his daily sustenance manifested his
psychological incapacity

IX. RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner-Appellant

respectfully pray to this Honorable Court to:

a) Declare the marriage between the Petitioner-Appellant and Respondent-

Appellee void ab initio, and without force and legal effect.

15
Antonio vs Reyes, GR 155800. March 10, 2006

18
 b) Declare that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential obligations of marriage.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila. February 14, 2019.

M. C. L. A LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant
Suite 601 Central Perk Building, 2441 Taft Ave.,
Malate, Manila
Landline Nos: (02) 123-456

BY:

MA. CARIZA L. ALMORADIE

ROA: 67123
IBP No. 12345678/Manila/01-15-19
PTR No. 5678910/Manila/01-15-19
MCLE Compliance No. 98765432
(Valid until April 19, 2022)
Mobile No. 0920-958-0985

EXPLANATION

Copies of this Appellant’s Brief were sent to the adverse parties through
registered mail due to distance and lack of messengerial service to effect
personal delivery.

MA. CARIZA L. ALMORADIE

19
COPIES FURNISHED:

ATTY. JUAN DELA CRUZ

Counsel for the Respondent-Appellee
JDC LAW OFFICE
171-A Magallanes St., Intramuros, Manila

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

City of Muntinlupa

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

No. 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City

XI. APPENDICES

(Copy of the Appealed Order of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa,

Branch 207, dated October 17, 2018 (Appendix “A”)

20
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Manila )

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF
COPY OF PLEADING

I, ROSS B. GELLER, of legal age, married, Filipino Citizen, and a

resident of 123 Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila, after having sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby depose and say THAT:

1. I am a liaison officer from the office of Ma. Cariza L. Almoradie, with

office address at M.C.L.A Law Office, Suite 601 Central Perk Building,
2441 Taft Ave., Malate, Manila;

2. In my aforementioned capacity, I had served a copy of this pleading

through registered mail in the case entitled “Maria Victoria Socorro
Lontoc-Cruz versus Nilo Santos Cruz”, docketed as CA-G.R-CV No.
201988 to the above-mentioned offices.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this 14th day of February
2019 in the City of Manila.

ROSS B. GELLER
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 14th day of February 2019 in the
City of Manila.

NOTARY PUBLIC

ATTY. MARK BRIAN CELESTINO

ROA: 63342
IBP No. 123456/Manila/01-12-19
PTR No. 78910/Manila/01-12-19
MCLE Compliance No. 11121314
(Valid until April 19, 2022)

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2019

21