This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
versus Civil Case No. ____________ FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
COMES NOW the petitioner through counsel and to this Honorable Court most respectfully states: Nature of the Case 1. This is a petition to declare a marriage null and void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. Petitioner prays that her marriage to respondent be declared null and void on account of their respective psychological incapacities – dependent personality on the part of petitioner, and avoidant personality disorder on the part of respondent – which are grave, incurable, and existed prior to their marriage, and which make them unable to comprehend their marital obligations to each other. Summary of Proceedings 2. In a petition dated October 1, 2010 filed on October 4, 2010, petitioner alleged that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations, and prayed that for the nullification of their marriage. The Solicitor General was furnished a copy thereof by registered mail on October 5, 2010; he received the same on October 11, 2010, as evidenced by the Return Card, the original of which is attached to petitioner’s Manifestation dated November 11, 2010. The Solicitor General entered his appearance per Notice of Appearance dated
2 November 5, 2010, and manifested that he had deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor of ________ to appear in his behalf. Respondent was personally served with summons and a copy of the Petition on November 17, 2010, as evidenced by his signature on the Summons dated October 4, 2010, which is attached to the Sheriff’s Return of Service dated November 19, 2010. Due to the failure of respondent to file his Answer within fifteen (15) days from service of summons, this Honorable Court, in an Order dated December 9, 2010, directed Prosecutor Rose to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties, and to submit her report thereon. In her Compliance dated March 17, 2011, Prosecutor Rose manifested that there is no evidence pointing to collusion between the parties. 3. Petitioner moved to amend her petition to allege that both she and respondent, and not just the latter, are psychologically incapacitated to comply with their marital obligations. Her motion was granted per Order dated May 9, 2011. The Amended Petition was filed on May 11, 2012 and a copy furnished to the Solicitor General by registered mail on the same day. The Amended Petition was received by the Solicitor General on May 17, 2011, as evidenced by the Return Card, the original of which is attached to petitioner’s Manifestation dated June 17, 2011. A copy thereof was also personally served on Prosecutor Rose on May 11, 2011, as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service dated May 11, 2011 attached to the petitioner’s Manifestation dated May 12, 2011. The Amended Petition was admitted per Order dated May 13, 2011. 4. Respondent was personally served with summons and a copy of the Amended Petition on May 18, 2011, as evidenced by his signature on the Summons dated May 13, 2011, which is attached to the Sheriff’s Return of Service dated May 20, 2011. 5. Per Order dated June 17, 2011 the pre-trial was set on July 11, 2011 in view of respondent’s failure to file his Answer to the Amended Petition, and the report previously submitted by Prosecutor Rose that there is no evidence pointing to collusion between the parties.
D. She testified about her observations of the parties’ behavior and interaction with each other and other persons in school and in other settings. He testified about his observations of the parties’ behavior and interaction with each other and other persons at work and other settings. 6. 2011 and summarized the issues as follows: “ISSUES: 1. Petitioner’s third witness was her close friend Karen who testified on November 11.” Petitioner’s motion to amend the pre-trial order to conform to the amended petition was granted per Order dated August 8. She was the parties’ classmate at their course at ______ and whose late father was a close friend of respondent’s father. “G”). 2011. The last witness for petitioner was the psychiatrist Dr. about the manifestations of their respective psychological incapacities and how they failed to understand and to comply with their essential marital obligations to each other. and 3. which constituted her direct testimony. Whether or not the respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Her second witness Eduardo testified on September 19. and he knew the parties long before they got married. incurable and existed before he marriage to petitioner. which constituted his direct testimony. He was respondent’s direct superior at _______ where petitioner also worked. 2011. 2011 as to the circumstances of her marriage with respondent. 2011. which constituted her direct testimony. “E”). She identified and explained her Sworn Statement (Exh. 2. 2011 set the initial trial date for August 8. Specifically. She identified and explained her Sworn Statement (Exh.3 The Pre-Trial Order dated July 11. Petitioner testified on August 8. Whether or not the respondent’s psychological incapacity is grave. He identified and explained his Sworn Statement (Exh. who testified on January 30. Whether or not the marriage of the parties should be declared void ab initio as a consequence of the foregoing. “F”). 2012 about her examination of the parties and her interviews of . and she knew the parties long before they got married.
a newspaper of general circulation in the Visayas and Metro Manila. 2011 Marriage contract of the parties Résumé of Dr. caused the publication of a Notice of Hearing dated May 28. after personally serving a copy thereof on Prosecutor Rose. 2012. per Order dated February 24. with leave of court. Petitioner and her witnesses were duly cross-examined by the State. and serving a copy by registered mail on the Solicitor General. 8. 2011. This was further reset to July 20. respectively. 2012. informing him that this case will be set for hearing on July 20. despite summons. The Notice was published in the June 7-13. 2012. “C”) and her Psychiatric Report (Exh. D Psychiatric Report of Dr. Reception of evidence for the state was set on April 16. and thus manifested that the State could not present controverting evidence. how these existed prior to their marriage. explained the root cause of the parties’ respective psyc hological incapacity. 2012 petitioner filed her Formal Offer of Exhibits. 2012. and how respondent’s Avoidant Personality Disorder is grave and incurable. 2012 the reception of evidence for the State was reset on August 10. Prosecutor Rose manifested that the respondent. She identified her Résumé (Exh. “D”) which summarized her findings. 2012 addressed to respondent.4 informants. Petitioner’s exhibits are as follows: “A” “B” “C” “D” and “D-1” “E” to “E-2” “F” to “F-2” “G” to G-2” Amended Petition dated May 11. 2012 issue of ________ . During the hearing on August 10. has failed to appear. Petitioner. 2012 the reception of evidence for the State was reset to May 28. 7. On February 2. 2012. where he had personally received summons on the Petition and Amended Petition on November 17. and explained the same. On July 20. 2012 and subpoena was issued to respondent at his last known address. 2012. 2010 and May 18. On April 16. D Sworn Statement of petitioner Sworn Statement of Karen Sworn Statement of Eduardo Petitioner’s exhibits were admitted without objection. Thus petitioner was given twenty-five (25) .
INCURABLE. 2012. 2012 or until September 19. (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. 2012 petitioner served and filed her Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum dated August 30. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. Aurelio (GR No. On August 30. praying for an additional 15 days from September 4. . the three issues under consideration are as follows: I. (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. 2012 to file the instant Memorandum. to wit: (1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Court of Appeals. (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. 2012 to file her Memorandum. (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified. as well as Articles 220. AND EXISTED BEFORE THEIR MARRIAGE III. should be given great respect by our courts. June 6. In Aurelio v. this Court created the Molina guidelines to aid the courts in the disposition of cases involving psychological incapacity. Argument As summarized during the pre-trial. the Supreme Court summarized the Molina Guidelines as follows: “In Republic v. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition. THE MARRIAGE OF THE PARTIES IS VOID AB INITIO AND SHOULD BE DECLARED AS SUCH AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITIES Discussion 9. 2011). (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. 175367. THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITIES ARE GRAVE. 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children.5 days or until September 4. (b) alleged in the complaint. THE PARTIES ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE II. while not controlling or decisive. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
petitioner successfully discharged her burden to prove that she and the respondent are both psychologically incapacitated to comply with their essential marital obligations. Apart from her own testimony.” Petitioner submits that she has complied with the Molina Guidelines (except for the seventh guideline which is inapplicable. particularly Section 2(d) thereof. which will be quoted in the decision. The parties’ maladies are so grave and so permanent as to deprive them of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond they assumed. Article 48 of the Family Code mandates that the appearance of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned be on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. serious. who corroborated her allegations on respondent’s behavior at school. D was able to interview the respondent only once. stating that the certification of the Solicitor General required in the Molina case is dispensed with to avoid delay. She also presented Dr. has modified the above pronouncements. pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. work.6 (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. She had basis to consider the information from him sufficient enough to confirm the facts given . D. briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition. and that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations. This Court. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification. that their psychological conditions antedate their marriage. and incurable. 10. to the petition. and petitioner’s own dependent personality. because his Avoidant Personality Disorder is grave. this will not invalidate her finding that respondent has an Avoidant Personality Disorder. as the marriage of the parties has not yet been annulled by the Catholic Church). 02-11-10. and in social situations. she presented two witnesses who personally know her and respondent. Still. While Dr. an expert witness from the field of psychology who testified that the aberrant avoidant behavior of respondent. are tantamount to psychological incapacity. as the case may be. and proved that their marriage should be declared null and void because respondent has an Avoidant Personality Disorder while she has a Dependent Personality. First.
161793. she’s perceptive and when I interviewed the respondent there was really a difficulty to obtain information because of the avoidant personality. this does not make petitioner’s testimony self-serving or hearsay. pp. Respondent’s personality disorder was the very reason why Dr. January 30. [S]he had a distant way of interacting and [s]he would give short responses and direct to the point. So he was actually talking that there was a reconciliation? Yes. by its very definition.7 to her by petitioner and her collateral informants. 11. [s]he could answer only with a yes or no. 343 SCRA 755. the petitioner was intelligent. February 13. D’s conclusion of respondent’s psychological incapacity hinged heavily on her own acceptance of petitioner’s version as the true set of f acts. 15. while Dr. Marriage. D was unable to conduct a prolonged examination of him: “A Yes. So do you think that he was telling the truth he told you that he wanted to do anything to reconcile with his wife? He is actually your Honor very true and honest in what he told me it’s just that part of his avoidant personality could not allow him to do the acts or the behaviors to actualize what he is thinking or what he desires. your Honor his very words were “What will I sacrifice or do to get her back I’m willing to do everything to fix the marriage or loose my job relocate or anything to get her back” but the wife never contacted him anymore and cut off the communication and went home to ______ and it was also his personality disorder that made him not to pursue or lift a finger to pursue her or get her back even with all these wishes that he had and desire to get the wife back.” (TSN. It’s really difficult to obtain elaborations on [him] or in [his] history and about the marriage. personal examination of the subject spouse by the physician is not required for the said spouse to be declared psychologically incapacitated (Te v. 761-762. You were able to interview XYZ personally? Thru the phone your Honor he refused to come to ________ since they separated he never lifted a finger to contact or go to ___________ to get the wife and then when I called him up just thru the efforts of having his cellphone number from the friends and the boss rather than from himself who wanted to reconcile. Marcos. only one word. emphasis ours) x-x-x Q A Q A Q A Q A Two. 2009). Te. One. So you actually did not release the idea of being evaluated was he aware that he was being evaluated for purposes of annulment? Yes I told him that this is for the annulment and he said he will do anything that they reconcile and the reason why he answered my text message and called me up was because he wanted to find out if there is still a chance that his wife will go back to him. GR No. especially if he refused to submit himself to examination (Marcos v. [s]he was monosyllabic. . necessarily involves only two persons. 764 ). 2012. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other.
who executed her psychiatric report and testified to explain her findings. the root causes of the parties’ respective psychological incapacities were medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by the expert Dr. 208-209 ) 11. “A”) which stated that: Petitioner and respondent were married on ___________ at ___________. D. since petitioner also testified in court on the facts upon which the psychiatric report was based. August 18. . the assessment of Dr. Republic. observed him and interacted with him. Three. petitioner’s narration of facts was corroborated in material points by the testimony of persons who personally know respondent. during her cohabitation with respondent. 2010). even if she was able to conduct a prolonged examination of him. respondent will not have personal knowledge of his psychological incapacity which Dr. and these were duly alleged in the Amended Petition (Exh. Thus she was able to experience his pattern of behavior which she could then validly relay to Dr. D was not based solely on the statements of petitioner. 185286. which marriage was registered in the Office of the Civil Registrar of __________ under Registry No. she thereby presented evidence in the form of testimony. and testified on their own o bservations of his behavior and interactions with them. Moreover. Lastly. D. (Azcueta v. ________ (Exh. D could have elicited from him. the psychiatrist’s lack of personal examination of respondent and her reliance on petitioner’s version of events will not invalidate her findings that respondent is psychologically incapacitated. Moreover. Significantly. and petitioner’s mother.8 To paraphrase Reyes v. D also testified in court to elaborate on her report and to fully explain the link between the manifestations of respondent’s psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. petitioner certainly had. but also on the observations of Eduardo. Dr. which testimony was corroborated in its material points by the testimony of other persons who also know respondent. “B”). When a witness testified under oath before the lower court and was cross-examined. Second. Reyes (GR No. who all know respondent. Karen. 588 SCRA 197.
they failed to do so due to respondent’s lack of interest. c) Although respondent alleged that he wanted to have children. serious. so much so that throughout their four years of married life they had sexual intercourse less than 10 times. as a way of avoiding rejection and negative evaluation. found that respondent has Avoidant Personality Disorder while the petitioner has a Dependent Personality.9 Petitioner has been a resident of ______ for at least six months prior to the filing of the Petition and Amended Petition. discussed the root causes of the parties’ respective psychological incapacity. which is a pervasive pat tern of social discomfort. with a significant pattern of social withdrawal. introverted. Among the examples of respondent’s disordered personality are the following: a) Contrary to petitioner’s expectations. e) Even though the parties were already married to each other. he was always disinterested and would answer that he will agree to whatever petitioner would decide. if ever. f) Respondent never brought petitioner to his family’s residence to visit his parents even though they lived only a few kilometers away from them. that such incapacity became manifest only after the solemnization of their marriage. “C”). b) Respondent was very averse to having sexual intercourse with the petitioner. respondent rarely. that as newlyweds she and respondent would consummate their marriage on their wedding night. he always claimed that he was tired and did not feel like it whenever petitioner asked him to have sex. d) When petitioner would ask respondent about his opinion on matters of mutual concern. g) Respondent was very averse to visiting petitioner’s family and relatives or to have anything to do with them. found the same to be grave. reduced her findings into writing ( Exh. and avoidant. included petitioner or solicited her opinion in planning his activities. and submitted a Résumé of her qualifications (Exh. Respondent’s Avoidant Personality Disorder. D conducted a psychiatric evaluation on both parties. and that these are grave and incurable. and incurable. h) Respondent did not trust petitioner with financial matters and never left her . “D”). fear of negative evaluation. Dr. which makes him incapable of complying with his essential marital obligations out of fear that petitioner will reject of belittle him. His Avoidant Personality Disorder causes him to avoid any responsibility. and timidity. is rooted in his feelings of inadequacy since he is by nature very timid. Both she and the respondent are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.
“E”). and that they became a couple mostly through her influence and prodding because respondent did not know how to court a girl. in his Sworn Statement (Exh.10 any money for safekeeping. Third. the root cause of her Dependent Personality is her having a controlling and over-involved mother which made her dread abandonment. and husband. respondent does not take a position. While she was strongly against her mother’s control and meticulous discipline. it took respondent forever to solve “people” issues. In her Sworn Statement (Exh. i. “G”) stated that he knew both petitioner and respondent well as they were business colleagues at ___ Corp. petitioner stated that the respondent had a reputation of being “not normal” when they were still classmates but she just dismissed this.e. job. she always hungered for her mother’s attention. On the part of petitioner. respondent was his subordinate and that it was very difficult to make friends with him as he kept too much to himself and participates in activities only when absolutely necessary. there was very little communication going on between petitioner and respondent such that they were more like colleagues rather than a couple. who eventually became his friends even before the parties got married. Petitioner’s first witness Eduardo. the parties’ respective psychological incapacities clearly existed even before their marriage. Her Dependent Personality contributed to the failure of her marriage as she was unable to make any decisions in life without first ensuring her mother’s approval. and eventually married respondent mainly because she knew he would be acceptable to her mother. and many times he allowed people to carry him with their decisions and actions. She feels lost in the absence of a strong figure in her life and constantly needs her mother’s approval as to her friends. the parties’ relationship was not working even . in solving operational issues at work. Thus she decided to have a relationship with. respondent was unable to make decisions on many things. when respondent disagrees with someone he will not say anything but will just stop acting on the matter at hand. 12. petitioner has established juridical antecedence. he did not want to maintain a joint account.
x-x-x I felt XYZ was taking the problem for granted or he just did not understand fully the situation he was in. and her for ideas of marriage. as compared to ABC who seem highly absorbed in achieving whatever it is she wants to achieve. he was able to interact with the parties outside of their working environment by having lunch with them at least once a week to talk about life and family. pars. I just thought they were both too young or at least I felt they did not know each other well enough.11 before they got married. Eduardo elaborated: “… I noticed that their relationship was not working. While ABC moved too fast. because when I work with XYZ is not a type of . Eduardo testified: “Q A Would you say that XYZ concept of marriage is totally different from what ABC outlook of marriage? At that time. On the other hand. the parties entered into marriage without really appreciating the need of having a relationship. x-x-x We were all looking forward to their wedding. and he suspected that the parties had some difficulty with each other (Id. especially on an emotional level probably neglecting to see the real nature of the relationship she was entering. and during the times I saw them as a married couple. nor accept the responsibilities attendant to the marriage. 2011. I saw ABC focused on the act of getting married.” (Exh. and therefore the complete absence of commitment by XYZ . I saw they were having an uphill relationship. I saw XYZ as very detached from many of the things happening around him. 13). and I thought then that they must really love each other considering their differences in attitude and outlook. I saw XYZ as unable to make decisions on many things. In effect. Early during their marriage. or they must know very little about each other or themselves. 16.. especially the lack of real decisions. “G”. I felt they were both “hostages” of the marriage. rather than willing participants. p. 15. while I felt XYZ never really made any decision at all. x-x-x At first ABC accepted it. I felt the strain of their relationship. even before they got married. Upon clarificatory questions from the Honorable Court. quietly and uncomplaining. in both business and on a personal level. 18. 2011 (TSN. Their relationship was built too much on the idea of marriage for ABC. affirmed that he knew the parties before they got married and had some idea that they have different personalities. emphasis ours) Eduardo affirmed and confirmed the contents of his Sworn Statement when he testified on September 19. for his lack of decision and hence seeming lack of responsibleness. 6). 12. I saw two people who were entering marriage without really appreciating the need of having a relationship. many times allowing people to carry him with their own decisions and actions. 10. Your Honor. 17. x-x-x Yes. pp. I saw she wanted to hang on to her ideas of marriage. September 19. Then she would talk about it and the emotional difficulties it brought her. based on a very weak foundation. He. rather than on the person. even at times not seeing relationships as they really are.
they went out with their classmates and having fun but respondent was fast asleep on one of the chairs. Karen affirmed and confirmed the contents of her Sworn Statement when she testified on November 11. I find him so very intelligent but I find his decision are always postponed or it is never made and he is very good in marketing and he is so very convincing. D. when she and her husband went out with petitioner and respondent. I thought ABC was looking at marriage as a good idea because she wanted to be with XYZ and I thought XYZ was being brought into it. she was very much taken by surprise when she learned that the parties had become a couple. This is my opinion. 12. So I said it was the wrong reason for being married. the petitioner would stay with her and her husband while respondent would go somewhere else. p. affirmed that she knew the parties in the year 1999 or before they got married. she and petitioner were the maids-of-honor at each other’s weddings. 13-14. petitioner was very disappointed when respondent slept during her birthday party. there were many occasions when she and her husband would be in the same social gatherings as the parties and even took vacations to Boracay together. November 11. there were many occasions that she and the parties were in the same social gatherings. So at that time I was just advising them so that they be both very sure. 2011. on one of the petitioner’s birthdays. the parties did not seem like a happy couple as she did not see any sign of closeness. 19.” ( TSN. and likes to keep to himself. who was acknowledged by the State to be an . Because I never saw him with a girl or really wanting to be with the girl and I was even surprised that when they were together. 7). Petitioner’s last witness Dr. So that is why I talked to them but I did not only once but I just gave my true sense word. 2011 (TSN. respondent is very shy. pp.12 person who make a decision. respondent’s father was a close friend of her late father. emphasis ours) Q A Petitioner’s second witness Karen. p. “F”) stated that she personally knows the parties as they were her classmates when they took their _____ at _________ or before the parties got married. Sept.. quiet. their common friends also noticed the distance between the parties. the parties did not do things as a couple (Id. she is familiar with the parties’ relation ship. While ABC is out going XYZ has a more passive behavior? As what I have observed is that they were not going to get married because of each other but they just wanted to get married. 14). 2011. in her Sworn Statement (Exh.
serious.13 expert witness in the field of psychiatry. Later. “D”): “Petitioner: ABC is the 2nd of 3 siblings and the only female. subservient to her and was a people person. she called her up daily even when she was only in _________. she did not raise weak kids. When her mother knew of her marital situation. She came from a conservative family. She grew up close to her nanny who was entrusted the care of the three siblings. his Avoidant Personality Disorder emanated from his family background/upbringing. They have no child out of this marriage. 3. Her mother threw . like some kind of a family council. especially if the guy was not within her social background. As a child she was active. x-x-x ABC was born in ________ but grew up in ___________ after the family moved there when she was only one year old. 2012. ABC held back from her mother any information about her relationships. Her brothers were also close to the nanny. and incurable. etc. She was happy that ABC did well and that after all. she had average grades but met a problem with her mother over a relationship with a boyfriend. She tried to be strong like her mother. He told ABC and other siblings what their father neglected doing and compared him with his rich sonsin-law. Her father retired early from his job as a corporate lawyer. pp. determined that these existed prior to their marriage. particularly in the determination of the existence of psychological incapacity (TSN. Her mother’s family was close. He went back to the province and became a fish pond owner. ABC was in the honor roll during elementary. stop crying and overcome feeling weak. They all ran to her for anything they needed. He died of liver cancer in 2001. like. and that these are grave. He could not cope well and not able to make decisions for himself. toothpaste cover pointed out. She mostly opened up to her. bathing time. His father-in-law used to criticize him for not doing anything productive. She was the disciplinarian in the family. not raised his voice to his wife. She was a workaholic. ABC’s elder brother was a ____________ working in ________ and was somewhat spared of their mother’s ways. smart and bubbly. She transferred to the city and studied in an exclusive catholic school for girls. 4). They believed that their mother raised them ‘too well’ so that they would not be weak like their father. he stopped working because he became depressed and resorted to drinking alcohol. In high school. while petitioner’s Dependent Personality arose out of her relationship wit h her mother. Dr. D narrated in her Psychiatric Report (Exh. was able to medically and clinically identify the root cause of their psychological incapacities: on the part of respondent. examined the parties’ respective backgrounds and marital history. She later became the bread winner. He was generally soft-spoken. January 30. as each consulted the other. The youngest was a ________ who did nothing but obeyed their mother. she told her to be strong. She did not show her weak side. Her mother was described as controlling and meddling. The children resented their grandfather for this and why their mother did not do anything about it. She was meticulous and she gave out schedules and rules for all the children to follow. She went ahead having a boyfriend behind her back. the way the toilet bowl should be flushed. She did double jobs at the airline and with the insurance. With ABC. She deprived ABC of having fun going out during teenage years.
After 6 years. She had her own set of friends . He went to school during elementary in _____________. His parents did not meddle in his life and let him be. He was also intelligent. She lived in _________ for 12 years. He could not say what he meant even when he knew what to tell. His siblings were also doing well in their careers. He then went to ______________. XYZ continues to live in a condominium. For them. ABC was a non-smoker and a non-drinker. He did not get involved in sports or any extracurricular activities. He was employed as a logistics manager then promoted as a senior manager. watched television or went alone to his parents’ place on weekends. she was then AVP in sales and marketing. He finished a course in ____________. She was liked by her boss and excelled in her work. ABC went back to ____________. an introvert.14 angry words at her and controlled her that led her to rebel. decent and had a good job. her art and paintings helped her express these feelings. Finally. as if he was not part of the company and with poor people’s skills. as her friends got married and had families. ABC was promoted first as they worked in the same company. He read at home. She had few friends whom she considered as her real friends. She did go out occasionally but had no friends to be with. During marriage. ABC experienced deep sorrow when her nanny was murdered and her father died. Thereafter. His parents were professionals. When she separated from XYZ in 2009. he has no social life. When she resigned in 2007. ABC also did not make any enemies in school and at work. which is her number one concern in her relationship with a guy. She liked the night life but similar to her teenage years. Art gave her real happiness but her mother did not view it as important. she worked at ________ for 7 years. He currently is connected with a construction company. He was close to his mother. taking nature trips and hiking by himself. She continued to go to school and finished a ___________. ABC was his first girlfriend. after which he resigned. focused on his work but a poor communicator. even when separated. She took up ___________ in ___________ and graduated cum laude. At that time. She opened up her problems to them. He mainly liked solitary activities: jogging and running alone. Another re lationship was painful as well because the guy chose his girlfriend over ABC who was then the third party. Her past relationships were all traumatic to her. Then ABC was sent to ____________ to stop the relationship. she cried a lot for this guy because he had another girl and caught them ‘in the act’. she worked in _____________. She had a two-year serious relationship when she was in 4th year high school but had to detach from him because of her fight with her mother over this. His friends were mostly from his high school and met them once a year during the batch Christmas party. He grew up in __________ and later lived in ___________. She worked at a __________ for two years. After __________. Only three of them were socially acceptable to her family. However. In her other relationship. XYZ did one job at a time and was not known to do multi-tasking. which he bought for them. He was acceptable to her family. She had many suitors. x-x-x Marital History: In 1999. she still was not allowed to go out at night. He was observed by his boss as quiet but intelligent. x-x-x XYZ was delivered in a hospital. XYZ met no academic problems in his studies. he was capable of raising a family. He was the only male sibling. She was in the top twenty of her class despite coming from a different course. He did not smoke or drink. she owned a bazaar and was a part time consultant. He transferred to __________and tried work at a call center for two months. She felt that people she loved seemed to die on her. she had XYZ for a boyfriend whom she eventually married. ABC was introduced to him at school. ABC had around ten boyfriends. He had no experience with women. At present.” x-x-x Respondent: XYZ was the 2nd of 3 siblings.
He did not like to talk about sex while ABC joked about it. During marriage. They did not have a regular sex life together. her family and friends. waste of time and energy. They had no team work. for she was fashionable. she did not pursue it because he was passive about it. She was never invited there. she felt he was the right person for her. ABC wanted to have a baby. He continued to jog or hike alone and see his parents alone. it was only 5 minutes away from her place. although. shown and told to her. dressed in trendy get-up. XYZ was intimidated by her. She had to tell him that it is what is proper. Memory was noted to be good. She initiated the friendship. slim.” (emphasis ours) In her psychiatric report (Exh. He also did not think that it was important for her to meet his family. When at work and ABC called. She loved and respected him. He had his own money while she had hers. In July 2009. It became clear to her that she was happier when alone. during the wedding and at his sister’s wedding. she had to initiate the talk. with coherent and relevant responses and able to elaborate when queried. They became steadies in 2003. in her early thirties. During that time. Dr. unlike her previous relationships. ABC met him again at work at _________. She dominated the decisions on where they will go or what topic to talk about. he did not have the tendency to leave her for another. At this point. But XYZ was generally passive such that she found means for them to be close. ABC realized that she really wanted to get married. She noted him as withdrawn and kind of strange. her family approved of him for ABC. He seemed uncomfortable with her presence and did not make any conversation with her. she went home to _________. She put a lot of efforts so that they went on dates. She had good eye contact with euphoric effect. She was behaved. he did not say he loved her. have a husband and kids. They became group mates in ______________. They were married in _________ in __________. She noted that he did things only to please her and that he needed to stabilize himself but he was not happy for himself at all. But she wanted to be loved and nurtured. as he could only focus on one task at a time. he did not lift a finger to arrange for the ‘pamanhikan’ such that ABC had to do it because it was the norm in her side. ABC applied to migrate to ____________ but after a year of planning. she left the condominium. as she needed a partner who will give her peace of mind and sense of security. She kept opening up to him for years during their marriage but he could not respond to what she expected. fair-skinned female with medium height. Intellectual . at the same time. “D”). But since she was approachable. On the other hand. They did not go on a honeymoon. If together inside the car. They became friends. Later. D identified the psychological tests she administered on the parties which led her to determine their respective psychological disorders which render them psychologically incapacitated to discharge their marital obligations.15 while he was a loner. she had not gone inside his house. Also. he did not have a difficult time to start a relationship with her. However. and that their disordered personalities are rooted on certain causes antedating their marriage: “Mental Status Examination: Petitioner: ABC appeared as a well kempt. She felt lighter and joyous. She got a schedule for them to see a doctor but he refused because he was not yet prepared. ABC tried hard to adjust to his ways. When they were inside their place together. Thereafter. She met his family thrice only: at the ‘pamanhikan’. it became a heavy atmosphere for ABC. he would drop the phone. She took care that he dressed well. She became unhappy of his behavior. He was fidgety and anxious when with them.
She plans to enroll in an art institute. calculation. the psychosexual history and the family history. orientation. She wanted to feel peace and contentment. He admitted feeling pained and was not sure what he would be doing. constructional skill. affect and appropriateness/deviation from the normal mood/affect). tests of higher cognitive functions as general fund of information and intelligence. Even in school. Her mother was not aware that she was part of the problem. She now went out frequently till early morning and with those ten years younger than her. Respondent: He claimed that he was willing to fix the marriage but it was she who was not for it. She had accurate account of the events related to her marital life. This evaluation utilized accounts of the petitioner as the main informant and other informants who personally knew him. She could not do what her friends did. educational. place and person. She had fair judgment and insight. She felt grateful to her mother such that she have good grades and good work record to satisfy her. memory test. but maybe. He never discussed his salary with her. choice of friends and type of work. Finally. and though appraisal (process or form content). which is described in the criteria of the DSM-IV TR . She was oriented to time. ABC blamed herself why she made the effort to have him yet the marriage did not succeed. military. an evaluation of emotional status (mood. as she was too afraid of her mother and obedient towards her. x-x-x RESULTS of the Evaluation Evaluation Procedure: The psychiatric clinical interview included gathering data regarding the presence of medical and psychiatric disorders. early. since it should come from him. She felt suffocated by her mother’s blaming but she realized that the mistakes she made were because she considered her mother first. This seal of approval made her feel that her mother supported her decision. showed the presence of Avoidant Personality Disorder. insight). relocate.16 functions were intact. in order to elicit additional data. She never answered back. her mother should give the approval. She mostly dominated him. ABC verbalized that she felt sad and pitied her husband however she could not force herself to stay in this marriage. abstract thinking. legal history). Family and communication did not hold them together. She felt that the decisions she made were all to make her mother happy. go abroad because she felt comfortable with her western upbringing. the personal history-prenatal and perinatal. he claimed that he would learn to accept their separation and move on. an evaluation of speech patterns (quality and quantity). cognitive tests (sensorium. an evaluation of perceptual disturbance. With XYZ. She abhorred telling him how she wanted him to behave towards her. She described XYZ as afraid of the unknown but preferred to go off on his own. not much data was gathered from the respondent on his family and personal background owing to the nature of his personality problem. Both the petitioner and the respondent were interviewed. and to have a relationship again that will make her happy this time. The Mental Status Examination included an appraisal of behavior/psychomotor activity. there was nothing in _______ that could make her go back and live with her mother again. Then during the separation. adulthood (social activities. He further enumerated that he would sacrifice his job. attention and concentration. However. Analysis of the case: The psychiatric evaluation of the respondent. ABC described herself as creative but her being an artist did not make her family proud of her since she was not at par with her cousins. no social skill. occupational. or do anything to get her back. reasoning judgment. current living situation. her mother had a high degree of acceptance of him. middle and late childhood through puberty and adolescence. she realized that she needed a husband to get her away from her mother. she went home even when in the past. intimidated by her family and did not trust her with money.
In her Sworn Statement (Exh. fear of negative evaluation. crying. it was respondent who chose where they will reside because it only around 5 minutes away from his parents’ house. or showing signs of anxiety in front of other people (7) Exaggerates potential difficulties. they engaged in sex less than 10 times during their marriage because he either refused or hesitated to do so because he claimed to be tired and did not feel like it. e. fourth edition text revision-a standard American classification of mental diseases) seen below: DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR AVOIDANT PERSONALITY DISORDER A pervasive pattern of social discomfort. despite the proximity petitioner has never been to her parents-in-law’s house . 4 and 6. 2. e. on many occasions respondent would masturbate on their matrimonial bed while petitioner was lying beside him. physical dangers. beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts. 13. petitioner wanted to have children but even though she discussed her fertile days with respondent he did not want to have sex during those days. or risks involved in doing something ordinary but outside of his or her usual routine. the permanence and incurability of respondent’s Avoidant Personality Disorder which has been deeply ingrained in his system since his early years was supported by evidence duly explained by the expert witness. petitioner stated that on their wedding night she and respondent did not consummate the marriage because respondent said he was tired. and has been shown to be sufficiently grave. they were able to consummate their marriage around two weeks after their wedding.g.17 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. “E”). rendering him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.g. refuses a promotion that will increase social demands (5) Is reticent in social situations because of a fear of saying something inappropriate or foolish. as indicated by at least four of the following: (1) Is easily hurt by criticism or disapproval (2) Has no close friends or confidants (or only one) other than first-degree relatives (3) Is unwilling to get involved with people unless certain of being liked (4) Avoids social or occupational activities that involve significant interpersonal contact. may cancel social plans because she anticipates being exhausted by the effort of getting there He fulfilled criterion # 1. or of being unable to answer a question (6) Fears being embarrassed by blushing. on the occasions that they had sex it was forced and happened at odd hours in the morning and petitioner felt that she was being raped. 3. and timidity. Fourth and fifth.
25). Upon clarificatory questions from the Honorable Court. 17). Did she confide to you some deeper personal problems with XYZ involving her life as a married couple? They are not doing thing as a couple they were not going to church together they were not hanging out together. and he would never make any decision if she asked him about simple things that would affect both of them (Id. she told you about that? Yes. Your Honor. 16. 18). I would tell ABC my in laws would invite me during Christmas or during New Year but according to ABC she has been only with her in laws once they got married and then her sister in law got married. 11-14. Your Honor. What kind of problems she tell you? She would tell me how XYZ was very uncaring. 18. 2011 (TSN. p. pp. petitioner’s witness Karen testified: “Q A Q A Q A From your statement you feel to be are closer to the petitioner and the respondent? Yes. Petitioner affirmed and confirmed the contents of her Sworn Statement when she testified on August 8. August 8. This revelation did not include the sexual contact? There were also stories about their sexual contact. when she confronted respondent about those things he did not have any reaction (Id. pp. She further testified that she personally observed or witnessed the respondent doing the things she mentioned in her Sworn Statement including his dysfunctional sexual behavior. After the marriage as a close friends to the petitioner confided to you her problems? Yes. Your Honor. 2011. respondent’s behavior did not change and that he was still acting like he was still single so she had to remind him that he was not single anymore and should act as a married man because she wanted a family (Id.18 because she was never brought there by respondent. 7-10). pp. she felt like she was living with a stranger and never felt like she never had a husband because they had their own separate activities and she had no link to her in-laws. did not invite her to his family during Christmas. 15.. respondent is very uncomfortable when he is around petitioner’s friends or family. they were not watching movies normal things that a normal couples would do.. respondent never gave his opinion about household matters or talk about family matters.. From the petitioner. So she felt that she was not actually close to XYZ. Specifically on what matters? That they were not doing sexual activities together which is actually Q A Q A Q A Q A .
As a young student. she always felt betrayed when a boyfriend left her for another girl. even when she was strongly against her control and meticulous discipline of her. The petitioner grew up having a controlling and over-involved mother. She had to steer him in the proper path to comply with the social norm of asking her hand in marriage. he had no experience with the opposite sex. borne out of his fears as well as his low self-esteem. she always sought her guidance and support that made her do excellent work in her studies and her job. She rebelled against her but she always hungered for her mother’s affection. even before marriage. Initially. This clearly showed some manifestations of her Dependent Personality. including shutting the petitioner out of his life. He could not ward off the petitioner’s persistent advances and eventually married her. His severe selfjudgment made him protectively withdraw from his surroundings. the petitioner included. Your Honor. It was all due to his Avoidant Personality Disorder that made him keep away from his spouse. It was all due to the Avoidant Personality Disorder that led to his inability to love and care for his wife. and incurability of respondent’s Avoidant Personality Disorder. As part of her dependent nature. 11. However. pp.” (TSN. her job and finally. Dr. The petitioner had to put all efforts to get to him. which is unusual for a married man . She however saw that there was no give-and-take in this marriage. permanence. His anxiety was unbearable until she was the one who confronted him and eventually left him. She expected peace and security. as she felt lost in the absence of a strong figure in her life. he felt intimidated by her and the people close to her. Hence. His avoidant behavior became fullblown as he did not invite his wife to join him in visiting his family. her husband. When they met. His own derogation and self-reproach led him to focus seriously in his work or whatever he was doing at a particular time. He started being avoidant in his functioning. as he preferred to be alone. Before marriage with the petitioner. He was no fun as he kept to his own routine. she even gave up on her inclination to keep pursuing her artistic gifts. Also as a middle child. He turned to himself in isolation from the world around him. Slowly. He was a loner and had other initiate any meaningful interaction but never him. even when they were not doing him any harm at all. She mentioned to you that XYZ would prefer do his things alone? Yes. he would fight out his fears of rejection by compensating in the academics. This made her dread abandonment and cling to significant others. This reflected his fearfulness of being belittled by others. Thus why he avoided interaction with his wife and her family during family gatherings for they might criticize him. 2011.19 normal for a married couple. The happenings during marriage were perceived as threatening. Unconsciously. timid and introverted. As he grew up. emphasis ours) Q A In explaining the gravity. “D”): “The respondent being the only son was close to his mother. his actions did not stop during the marriage. Nov. he would cling to his mother often in order to obtain comfort for his feelings of inadequacy. He avoided the issue of sex and having a kid. She constantly needed her mother’s approval as to her friends. He was by nature quiet. in high school up to college. These reflected the severity of his Avoidant Personality Disorder. This dependency was prominent in her relationships with the opposite sex. They did not communicate and the love that she longed for . 15-16. he did not get involved in school activities. He went about his solitary activities by himself. He turned to his own world and isolated himself from his surroundings. She had to run back to her mother after the separation. she thought that having a withdrawn husband would mean the absence of this control that she abhorred. he developed into a person who had fears of being unloved. he was found to have a significant pattern of social withdrawal. This was observed by the petitioner who saw his great discomfort when they were together. With his poor social skills. D explained in her Psychiatric Report (Exh.
permanent. and petitioner’s friend Karen. based on her psychiatric evaluation of the parties. The petitioner is unlikely to reconsider living with him again since he could not answer her dependency needs. It has poor treatment outcome because it is an enduring and persistent disorder that is developmental in origin. her own dependent personality contributed to the failure of this marriage. and incurable. respondent had an Avoidant Personality Disorder while petitioner had a Dependent Personality (TSN. You said that he has an Avoidant Personality Disorder. The Dependent Personality of the petitioner contributed to the outcome of the marriage. in your expert opinion what is the root cause of this disorder? Well. It caused the respondent not to do his responsibilities to love and care for his wife. Remarks and Recommendations: The evaluation showed that the respondent presented with Avoidant Personality Disorder. pp. So from childhood? Yes. and there is a link between the parties’ respective psychological conditions and the way they behave towards each other as spouses: “Q A Now.D. I was able to talk to him also. the petitioner’s mother. due to hypersensitivity to criticism. 2012. described as a persistent pattern of social withdrawal. Avoidant Personality Disorders could be familiar with is handed down or seen or modeled by other family members and then at the same time it could be a part of the way he was brought up wherein the social skills were not emphasized in terms of how a child grows up. It is grave and serious that led to the break-up of the marriage. were you able to conduct an examination of him? Yes Sir. the respondent’s boss Eduardo.20 was not what she got. Q A Q A Q A Q A . Now. in layman’s terms what should that be? This is a type of a person who exceeded extreme. respondent’s Avoidant Personality Disorder is severe. noted before marriage.” (emphasis ours) Dr. Both can benefit from this since they can still find future partners whom they can have healthier relationships. let’s go to the respondent. Now in determining that the respondent has Avoidant Personality Disorder. with these findings. She remained firm in her decision to cut the marital bond. Therefore. 5. Finally. the parties’ respective psychological conditions developed gradually from childhood. a tendencies to avoid or to be extremely shy and a loner and would rather be by himself than socialize or interact with others even with his close family members and friends. M. 6). and grave enough to disable him from assuming his essential marital obligations. D. petitioner has an avoidant personality. In your opinion and experience did the respondent’s disorder developed gradually thru the years or did it come about just suddenly? It gradually developed thru the years as part of his developmental process as he growing up as an individual into maturity. D testified that she was familiar with the parties as she was able to interview them both. January 30. from childhood up to adulthood. the petition for nullity of marriage between them is highly recommended.
especially the job and even the husband the gust that she interacted with or even possible candidates for marriage. In the case of the petitioner to whom was she dependent on? She was dependent on her mother who was characterized as over controlling and over involved who was still monitoring her from childhood up to now that she is already reached adulthood race and was always expecting a lot from her in life. in your expert opinion what is the root cause of petitioner’s dependent personality? This was the strong. is there a link between respondent’s disorder and the way he behaves as the husband and the way he treats his wife? Yes. even before the marriage his avoidant behavior was already noted in his having known always being alone. How would you characterize the gravity or severity of the respondent’s disorder? The respondent’s disorder was actually severe knowing that during marriage the avoidant behavior was noted in his shyness or excessive timidity even interacting with the petitioner herself because at home he would not talk or initiate the conversation with the wife. he was not fond of going with others. Now is there a link between petitioner’s dependent personality on the way she behaves as a wife? Yes. when they went to family gatherings he was just alone in one corner he abhorred or did not bring his wife to meet his family and only on important occasions such as weddings. He was also well favored by her family who looked up to his credentials in his intelligence as a good candidate for them as a husband and therefore. over controlling and over protective nature of her mother who always molded her as she grew up into one who would always have to seek the advice and decisions of her mother.21 Q A Now. she excelled academically and also in her work because she is intelligent. So are you saying that the major decisions in petitioner’s life the petitioner had to secure the approval of her mother? Yes. Now. In this case this disorder curable? This Avoidant Personality Disorder it’s characteristic signs and symptoms is not anymore curable. meaning the he is not psychologically incapacitated? No. rather his academic and work achievements are part of quoting in Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A . and this was already noted prior to the marriage or while they were still steadies at that time. actually. from her mother she wanted to transfer that dependency to a husband who was a very good worker. he did not bring his spouse to even enter his family’s room. In your opinion and experience did the petitioner’s dependent personality happened overnight or suddenly or did it develop gradually into? It developed gradually or developed mentally thru the years from childhood to adulthood. Sir. Now. Sir. except being alone. that’s correct. now does his having academic achievements and he was good at work. you said that the family of the petitioner approved to the respondent because he was good at work and also had academic achievements. she wanted to transfer this feeling of dependency on the husband. This was perceived or evaluated as excessive and severe. Now on the part of the petitioner you said that she has a Dependent Personality. So she married the respondent because her family approved of him? Yes. he was unsocial or not interactive with others. so in layman’s term what it this mean? This is a set of characteristics wherein the individual remained attached or closed or would lead others to decide or to do things for them and they are set to please the persons that are more of stronger personality of whom they can depend on.
respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations embodied in Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. pp. respect. Q A Q A Q A . So there is still a possibility of reconciliation between the parties. to procreation – making him unable to understand his responsibilities as a husband. but according to the petitioner there was no action coming from him to her. she was the one calling or making contact with him. relocating or doing anything as long as he would get her back. 6-9) Q A 14. physical. 2012. he is unable to make any commitment to his wife – from simple things such as household matters. get her back or pursue her but there was no action or even calling her. there was no communication coming from him to her. Indeed. As a result of his Avoidant Personality Disorder. there was no mention of that and went home to ________. based on my interview with him he said that he will do anything to fix the marriage and even if he is losing his job. is this correct? I don’t think so.22 these psychological problems in the disorders. texting her. only a one-sided. and who cannot contribute to the material. So it’s possible for a person to be academically gifted and successful. Ma’am. Is this also a manifestation or concurrence that he was only influenced or the marriage was not his own decision but only because ABC was his first girlfriend? Actually. one who does not understand how the concept of marriage works. the respondent although wanted to get her back never lifted a finger to pursue her to go to ___. never did he go to ___________ to be with her. Is there a possibility by your experience and based on your evaluation that the family of the boy XYZ does not approve of ABC? Based on the petitioner’s allegations when they did the “pamanhikan” and the parents were there they were treated well in the family of the respondent but she could not even understand why her spouse could not even invite her to go to his parents’ place when he goes there every weekend. Sir. D testified as to how she was able to determine that respondent’s Avoidant Personality Disorder makes him unable to comply with his essential marital obligations: “Q A Q A Q A And there is an allegation by ABC that never once she was brought to the house of the respondent. and support under Article 68. and emotional well-being of his spouse is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations under Article 36. at the same time to be psychologically incapacitated? Yes. Dr. he just said “enough”. observe mutual love. it’s possible. So primarily the disorder or the defect here as one of the results of your examination was on the respondent himself? Yes.” (TSN. And did he give any reason? No. He plainly failed to fulfill his marital obligations to live together. Sixth. did you confirm this with XYZ? Yes. January 30.
” (TSN. January 30. b) The respondent was very averse to having sexual intercourse with the petitioner. Did you ask him why he did not want to consummate your marriage? He said he was tired. either refusing or hesitating to do so. when they were newly married and for all the years that they stayed together there was no initiative on their part to meet her. she was also the one who would initiate sexual encounters everytime and there is less than I think 10 times only that they had the intimacy together as husband and wife that’s her own initiation not coming from the spouse. so much so that throughout their four years of married life they had sexual intercourse less than 10 times. 5 of the Amended Petition (Exh. as alleged in par. emphasis ours) Q A Q A Respondent was also unconcerned about his obligation to provide emotional and sexual intimacy to petitioner. maybe 2 weeks after the wedding. how many times did you engage in sex? Less than 10 times. 12-13. Were you able to consummate your marriage? Yes. “E”) petitioner narrated: “After your marriage. This was quite more of a super nerd rather than in homosexual. After the marriage. “A”): “a) Contrary to petitioner’s expectations. c) Although respondent alleged that he wanted to have children. pp. I think so it was more of the upbringing because the parents were also did not make any move to visit the in-law. So it is all about upbringing? Yes. where did you spend your wedding night? At the hotel where we had our wedding reception. I found it weird that we did not have a normal . he always claimed that he was tired and didn’t feel like it whenever petitioner asked him to have sex. that as newlyweds she and the respondent would consummate their marriage on their wedding night. During your marriage. 2012. Given that you engaged in pre-marital sex. Did you engage in pre-marital sex? Yes. and at that time it felt normal. What was your reaction to that? I thought it was strange but decided not to dwell too much on it because I figured we had the rest of our lives to be with each other.23 Q A Even in the allegation of the petitioner as to the alleged reluctance of the respondent to have sexual intercourse. We did not consummate the marriage. He acted strangely to having sex. it was no longer this way.” While in her Sworn Statement (Exh. What happened during your wedding night? We just went to sleep. according to the petitioner she was the one who courted him. So is there a possibility of homosexuality on the behavior of the respondent? According to the boss whom I interviewed there was no actuations or anything outwardly behavior in the office that would point to that. was this brought to the attention of their parents? Yes. why did it take you two weeks to consummate your marriage. and why did you engage in sex less than 10 times during your marriage? We engaged in pre-marital sex only twice. he would rather sit alone and worked alone and not be distracted that even his wife calling him he will put down the phone. they failed to do so due to respondent’s lack of interest.
he would masturbate in our bed beside me while he thought I was asleep. What was your reaction to this? I felt that his behavior was very abnormal. he deserves to be doubted for not having asserted his right seven though she balked (Tompkins vs. An examination of the evidence convinces Us that the husband's plea that the wife did not want carnal intercourse with him does not inspire belief. Tompkins. 111 Atl. Especially because on many occasions.24 sex life after we got married. Since he was not physically impotent. 599. Yet he is not impotent. 330). but he refrained from sexual intercourse during the entire time (from May 22. 1989) that he occupied the same bed with his wife. In the landmark case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. I talked to him about conceiving a child and even discussed openly my fertile days so that it would help us plan. the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity. one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is "To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage. if it were true that it is the wife was suffering from incapacity. I don’t really understand how it turned out this way. cited in I Paras. Did he tell you why he refused or hesitated to engage in sex with you? He would say he was tired and didn’t feel like it. Besides. Did you want to have children with him? Yes I did. at p.” (underscoring ours) Respondent practically refused to engage in sexual intercourse with petitioner with the consistent alibi that he was tired. 333335 ) the Supreme Court emphasized that constant non-fulfillment of the marital obligation to procreate is equivalent to psychological incapacity: “Evidently. for the most part it was forced and it would happen at really odd hours in the morning and I felt like I was being raped. as he was never too tired to masturbate on their matrimonial bed while petitioner was lying beside him. the fact that defendant did not go to court and seek the declaration of nullity weakens his claim. Do you have any child or children? No. But I just got disappointed when he still did not want to have sex during my fertile days. As aptly stated by the respondent court. In fact. when I returned from the vacation in US." Constant nonfulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. since it felt normal to do so before our marriage. And in the less than 10 times that we had sex. 1988 to March 15. Did he want to have children? He said he did. Civil Code. purely out of sympathy for her feelings. supra). Republic. Respondent’s aberrant sexual behavior his inhibitions at having a regular sexual relationship with his wife and refusal to have a child with her are physical manifestations of a psychological disorder that renders him incapable of complying with his marital obligations (Azcueta v. This case was instituted by the wife whose normal expectations of her marriage were . In the case at bar. Court of Appeals (266 SCRA 324.
1298). We are not impressed by defendant's claim that what the evidence proved is the unwillingness or lack of intention to perform the sexual act. That is — a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. 68." After almost ten months of cohabitation. which is not psychological incapacity. conscious of its value as a sublime social institution. Considering the innate modesty of the Filipino woman. it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. which are revelatory of his inability to understand and perform the essential obligations of marriage. and comply with his essential marital obligations. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. respect and fidelity (Art. the admission that the husband is reluctant or unwilling to perform the sexual act with his wife whom he professes to love very dearly. is indicative of a hopeless situation. much less its psychic meaning. and who has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his alleged approaches. no man is an island. and of a serious personality disorder that constitutes psychological incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants within the contemplation of the Family Code. . it is hard to believe that she would expose her private life to public scrutiny and fabricate testimony against her husband if it were not necessary to put her life in order and put to rest her marital status. Marital union is a two-way process. It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private respondent. respect. This Court. comprehend. Cuaderno 120 Phil." This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. and which can be achieved "through proper motivation. While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together. a person unable to comply with his obligations to his spouse would similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the marital bond. sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise. finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem.25 frustrated by her husband's inadequacy. Love is useless unless it is shared with another. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations. and the pathologic nature thereof. Indeed. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. In the natural order. the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say "I could not have cared less. the sanction therefor is actually the "spontaneous. and the corresponding obligations attached to marriage. Petitioner and her witnesses were emphatic about his behavior on matters concerning his relationship with and marriage to petitioner. Indeed. One unable to comprehend his essential marital obligations cannot be expected to adhere as well to any legal or emotional commitments. mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order" (Cuaderno vs. observe mutual love.” The actuations of respondent prove that he has totally failed to understand. The egoist has nothing but himself. can do no less but sustain the studied judgment of respondent appellate court. Family Code).
while one with the only set of the personality traits can still or able to do his obligations in marriage. to love. Are the parties capable of their basic marital obligations? If the person has the disorder there is actually now a difficulty or they have incapability to understand their marital obligations because they cannot see it the way that a normal person can see it. rather than them with themselves. January 30. in the . it is difficult to see how a marriage between respondent who has an avoidant personality disorder and petitioner who has a dependent personality would result in commitment to the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love. 14-15. Their own version or the point of their obligations are already distorted because of their personality disorders. 2009 in Halili v. Halili (GR No. would not be able to sustain a good and therapeutic marriage with a one having avoidant. so the effect is still the same? Yes. it’s really possible that she has to get out of this marriage because of the severity and the inability or in the capacity of the respondent’s change and conform or to accommodate her needs. This Court. So in short you are saying that the degree of the disorder of ABC is not serious? It did not reach the criteria only the mother deciding for her and her being too dependent on the mother’s affirmation and decisions. to care and so on. As testified to by Dr.” (TSN. 10-11. pp. 13. emphasis ours) Q A Q A Q A x-x-x Q A x-x-x Q A Q A Said the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated June 9. Actually a persons with Avoidant Personality Disorder are so comfortable with their avoidant behavior that they do not see it as problematic it’s the other who are disturbed and having problems with them. So even though the petitioner does not have any disorder but just a dependent personality even that she is married to a person with that personality disorder. 2012. D: “Q A But what happens when a person with a dependent personality such as the petitioner gets married to a person with an Avoidant Personality Disorder such as the respondent? A dependent person. And is there a possibility for the treatment of this kind of personality of the respondent? I don’t think so he is very comfortable. But when she met the Avoidant Personality Disorder of XYZ their marriage became no longer tolerable? Yes. Your Honor. of course. 165424): “It has been sufficiently established that petitioner had a psychological condition that was grave and incurable and had a deeply rooted cause.26 In view of the foregoing. the Avoidant Personality Disorder would tend always to evade and to avoid and to be detached from others even with their spouses which does not fulfill the need of a person being a dependent personality. What is the effect of the parties in their respective conditions with their capacity to assume or to understand their marital obligations? One with the personality disorder is not capable anymore to assume marital obligations. trust and respect.
beginning in childhood or adolescence. Philippines.”” Prayer WHEREFORE. create problems for those who display them and for others. Particularly. recognized that individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually have long-term concerns. . 2012. and thus therapy may be long-term. These disorders affect all areas of functioning and. inflexible ways of behaving that are not so much severe mental disorders as dysfunctional styles of living.27 same Te case. __________. personality disorders are “long-standing. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. September 18. petitioner most respectfully prays that her marriage to respondent be declared void ab initio.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?