You are on page 1of 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH ____
MANILA


JUANA GO DELA CRUZ,
Petitioner,

- versus -

JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x
ANSWER
Respondent, JUAN DELA CRUZ, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully avers the following in response to the Petition for Declaration of
Nullity.
1. 2 is admitted insofar as his personal circumstances are concerned.
2. 16.2 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Respondent did have his reasons for
getting angry at the Petitioner and that it was the latter who had locked herself up in the
bathroom.
3. 19.2 is DENIED insofar as the Respondents supposed act of forcing the Petitioner to drink
the water is concerned.
JDRC Case No. ___________
(for: Declaration of Nullity
Under Article 36 of the
Family Code)
4. 21 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had sexual liaisons with other
women is concerned.
5. 22 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Petitioner had requested the
Respondent to engage in sexual intercourse with her.
6. 24.1 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had sexual intercourse with
his masseur is concerned.
7. 25 is ADMITTED, insofar as the heated altercation is concerned. But it is averred that the
Respondent was likewise the victim of battery inflicted by the Petitioner.
8. 25.1 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being as follows:
8.1. Petitioner and Respondent were inside their car, parked along Roxas Boulevard.
Petitioner unnecessarily and unexpectedly raised the issue regarding the Respondents
children. Specifically, the Petitioner expressed her desire to send them away from the
family home. Petitioner then used profane and derogatory language to describe the said
children, cursing their very existence. The Respondent tolerated the Petitioners
behaviour for five (5) minutes, upon the lapse of which he demanded the latter to desist.
In response, the Petitioner slapped and punched the Respondent, for which reason the
latter was prompted to strangle her. However, the Petitioner bit the Respondents wrist
and was thus able to escape.
8.2. The Petitioner ran away from the car and the Respondent followed her, demanding that
she return. As the Petitioner ran, she turned her head to voice her refusal. This prevented
her from seeing the light post ahead, which she ran into and hit her head. Forced into a
stop by the pain, the Petitioner was quickly taken by the Respondent and brought to a
hospital.
9. 27 on the consultation with Dr. Navarro is ADMITTED. But the Respondent DENIES that
it is sufficient to establish his supposed psychological incapacity. The Respondent DENIES
that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is grave enough to prevent him from complying with
the essential marital obligations.
10. The Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defense that the petition FAILS TO STATE
A CAUSE OF ACTION.
10.1. A cursory reading of the petition would show that it fails to allege the element of
INCURABILITY. In the case of Santos v. CA, the Supreme Court enumerated the three
requirements of psychological incapacity: (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability.
1

10.2. While 29 alleges juridical antecedence and 32 alleges gravity, NOWHERE IN
THE PETITION IS IT ALLEGED THAT THE SUPPOSED ROOT CAUSE OF THE
RESPONDENTS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS PERMANENT OR
INCURABLE.
10.3. The Respondent thus respectfully prays that the petition be dismissed for
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition be dismissed for failure to state a cause
of action.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
_____________, Philippines, __Date__.
VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Respondent
14
th
Floor Philamlife Tower
8767 Paseo de Roxas
Paseo de Roxas, Makati City
Tel. No. 702-5930 to 02
Email: vloffice@gmail.com

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

1
310 Phil. 21 (1995).

Copy hereof received ______ this _________ day of ___________, ____________

JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Petitioner

VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Respondent

COPY FURNISHED:
JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM
LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Petitioner
27
th
Floor Trafalgar Bldg.
888 H.V. Dela Costa St., Makati City
Tel. No. 800-0001 to 04
Email: firmjek@jeklaw.com.ph

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Makati City

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Manila City