COMES NOW defendant thru the undersigned counsel unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully submits its Pre-Trial Brief, to wit: I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES a. Plaintiff seek for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity due to the alleged failure to comply with marital obligations by the Defendant; b. As alleged and argued in Defendants Answer dated October 7, 2014 by defendant Johndel a.k.a JD Penalosa interposed the following defenses i. That the Plaintiff failed to establish the ground of psychological incapacity in the instant complaint. ii. That the allegations failed to meet the standards as set forth by the Supreme Court on psychological incapacity, to wit: 1. As ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Santos vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20), x x x who opines that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved x x x. c. That the Complaint seeking for Declaration on Nullity of Marriage does not specify the regime governing the property relations of the spouses, as well as the properties involved, in violation of the requirements under Section 5(2) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, thus
1|Page
failure to comply with the requirements enumerated x x x
may be a ground for immediate dismissal of the petition.;
II. POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
a. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal manifestation of openness from Plaintiff, Defendant is open to the possibility of amicably settling this dispute b. Defendant respectfully submits that the desired terms of any amicable settlement would involve the dismissal of the petition on the ground of lack of cause of action, and the payment of damages prayed for.
III. STIPULATION OF FACTS
IV. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
a. Defendant respectfully submits that the issues on this case are: i. Whether or not the allegations made by the Plaintiff are sufficient grounds to conclude that Defendant is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations. ii. Whether or not there is basis to nullify the plaintiffs marriage with the defendant on the ground of psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations.
V. Documentary Evidence. Exhibit
Purpose
VI.Testimonial Evidence. Witness
Substance of Testimony
2|Page
VII. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE
a. Supreme Court A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC b. Supreme Court A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC c. Provisions of the Family Code i. Article 36 of the Family Code ii. Article 55 of the Family Code iii. Other provisions applicable. d. Supreme Court Decision, viz: i. Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Roridel Plaviano Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997 ii. Leouel Santos vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995 iii. Republic of the Philippines vs. Cesar Encelan, G.R. No. 170022, Jan 9, 2013 iv. Valerio E. Kalaw vs. Ma. Ellena Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, September 19, 2011 v. Enrique Agraviador y Alunan vs. Erlinda AmparoAgraviador and Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170729, December 8, 2010 vi. Republic of the Philippines vs. Crasus L. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, September 21, 2005 VIII. Resort to Discovery Procedure a. Considering the relatively simple issues presented, Respondent does not intend to avail of discovery at this time. b. Subject, however, to a concrete and reasonable request for discovery from Petitioner, Respondent reserves the right to resort to discovery before trial.
3|Page
IX. Amendment of Answer
Defendant does not intend to further amend his answer. X. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES The undersigned counsel is available for trial on any date from December 2014 to February 2015, at any day convenient. The undersigned counsel also respects the calendar of this Honorable Court and agrees to other dates that may be set during the pre-trial as may be convenient to the counsel for the defendant and the Honorable Court.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Bacolod, November 25, 2014.
A.TYANS AND J. MORTIME
LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Defendant 2nd Floor V & A Building Lacson Street, 6100 Bacolod City
ATTY. GIBIT A. TYANS
Roll of Attorney No. 906112 IBP No. 240906Bacolod City-April 3, 2010 PTR No. 958305Bacolod CityApril 3, 2010 MCLE Compliance No.: EXEMPTED Copy furnished: . Counsel for the Plaintiff GF Prudential Life Bldg, Bacolod City
33 Collier Bankr - Cas.2d 781, Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,478 in Re Phillip E. Hawley and Linda D. Hawley, Debtors. Phillip E. Hawley v. Cement Industries, Inc., 51 F.3d 246, 11th Cir. (1995)