Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch _______, City of Malabon

MARIE EIRENE F. MARTIN - REGLA,

petitioner
-versus-

Civil Case No. _____

For: Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Marriage

RICHY N. REGLA,
respondent
x----------------------------x

AN SWER
COMES NOW, respondent, by the undersigned counsel, most respectfully submits his answer
to the petition in the above-titled case, and for this purpose states:
1. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 1 of the petition insofar as the
personal circumstances of the petitioner is concerned;
2. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 2 and 3 of the petition insofar as
his personal circumstances is concerned;
3. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 3 and 4 insofar as our personal
circumstances is concerned;
4. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 5 with regard to the date of their
marriage, place where it was celebrated and the name of the solemnizing officer;
5. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 6 insofar as our personal
circumstances is concerned;
6. That the respondent denies the allegation in paragraph 7. The petitioners parents
provided support to their wedding though its not that big amount of money. (Affidavit of
the Respondents mother marked as Annex A);
7. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 8 and believed that the petitioner
understands the reason why the respondent needs to leave the country that is to earn
money for the family. (Affidavit of the Respondent marked as Annex B);
8. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 9 of the petition with regard to
brief vacations in the Philippines but denies the rest thereof. During their
vacation in Bohol, it was agreed upon by the parties that the entire duration of the

vacation will be spent for relaxation by going to the different tourist spots found in the
city. Evidence will prove that it was even the petitioner who was eager to spend their
days out of the hotel and who seemed to be happier with their itinerary during their break.
(Affidavit of the Respondent marked as Annex C and Video Tape of the Bohol
vacation marked as Annex D herein attached);
9. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 10 that the respondent gave birth
to their common son, Romeo Lorenzo M. Guazon, on August, 2005 in Navotas City. (A
copy of the birth certificate of their son marked as Annex E herein attached)
10. That the respondent admits the allegation stated in paragraph 11 but denies the last
sentence, the respondent did not commit to other relationships while he was in Sweden.
11. That the respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 12 the respondent did not commit
to other relationships while he was in Sweden. The respondent never became unfaithful
to the petitioner. He loves her so much that time and impossible for him to hurt her
feelings; (Respondents recent love letters marked as Annex F);
12. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 13 insofar as their personal
circumstances is concerned;
13. That the respondent admits the allegation stated in paragraph 14 since during that time
the respondent got used to living alone and enjoyed that fact that he has nothing to think
about while he is at work;
14. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 15 insofar as our personal
circumstances is concerned. Their son usually calls the respondent every time he missed
his father.
15. That the respondent denies the allegation stated in paragraph 16. The respondents mother
is the one who is depositing the remittances he sent while he was in Sweden and the
respondent strongly reminds his mother to make sure the allowance will be given to their
son on time. (Affidavit of the Respondents mother marked as Annex A and Receipts
of remittances marked as Annex G);
16. That the respondent admits the allegation stated in paragraph 17 since during that time
the respondent misses his family so much that it is his only way to cope up with the
loneliness he had while he was away;
17. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 18 insofar as their personal
circumstances is concerned;
18. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 19 insofar as their personal
circumstances is concerned;
19. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 20 insofar as their personal
circumstances is concerned;

20. That the respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 21 to 28 insofar as the results and
circumstances on their Psychological Evaluation and that the respondent submitted
himself to physical examinations and even returned for several times for follow up checkups.
21. That the respondent admits the allegation in paragraphs 28 to 38 insofar as their personal
circumstances is concerned;
22. Psychological incapacity as a broad range of mental and behavioural conduct on the part
of one spouse indicative of how he or she regards the marital union, his or her personal
relationship with the other spouse, as well as his or her conduct in the long haul for the
attainment of the principal objectives of marriage. If said conduct, observed and
considered as a whole, tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it defeats the very
objectives of marriage, then there is enough reason to leave the spouses to their
individual fates. In the case at bar, the petitioner left the respondent to work abroad. The
respondent maintains that the fault lies with Eirene since the relationship is still very
young and if there is any difference between the two of them, it can still be reconciled.
However, Gina closed herself to that possibility;
23. Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental incapacity and that there is
hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
'psychological incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.;
24. The psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability." In the present case, there is no clear showing to us that
the psychological defect spoken of is incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a
"difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital
obligations. Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities"
in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties
failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they
must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical)
illness;
25. The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not
get along with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem;
neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Alteza
showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility, not psychological
incapacity;
26. Also, in one case, the court reiterated that 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. Their case constitutes
only difficulty in reconciling their time but not psychological incapacity.

P R AYE R
WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of
the Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgement be rendered
DISMISSING the instant petition for lack of merit.
Quezon City, Philippines, 30 August 2010

Atty. Vienna Eleize Beltran Mantiza

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Until December 31, 2020
Roll No. 38738, June 6, 2010
IBP O.R. No. 603496, June 9, 2010, Manila City
PTR No. 1198478, June 9, 2010, Manila City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF QUEZON

) s.s.

V E R I F I C AT I O N
I, RICHY N. REGLA , Filipino, of legal age, married to the petitioner and a resident
of Malate, Manila, after having been duly sworn on accordance with law, hereby depose and
state:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

That I am the respondent in the above-titled case;

That I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer;
That I have read the contents thereof;
That all the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge;
That I hereby certify that I have not commenced an action involving similar issues
before the Supreme Court or any of its division; before the Court of Appeals or any
divisions thereof; before the Regional Trial Courts, or any other agency of the
government. That if I should learn about the pendency of similar action, I shall inform
the Supreme Court within five days from the knowledge thereof.

`
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this 30 th of August at Paco,
Manila

RICHY N. REGLA
RESPONDENT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 30th day of August 2010 at Paco, Manila,
affiant exhibiting to me his Drivers License No. 1234-56 issued at Malate, Manila on June 3,
2005.
Atty. Vienna Eleize Beltran Mantiza
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Until December 31, 2020
Roll No. 38738, June 6, 2010
IBP O.R. No. 603496, June 9, 2010, Manila City
PTR No. 1198478, June 9, 2010, Manila City
Doc. No. 123
Page No. 456
Book No. XV
Series of 1990