Branch 4

CIVIL CASE NO._________





Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed before this court
by petitioner JOEY DICHOSO seeking that his marriage with JENNY DICHOSO
be annulled for the same is incapable of maintaining and performing her
marital obligations for allegedly the same is suffering from Psychological
incapacity defined under Art 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
The undisputed factual antecedents of the case are as follows:
Jenny and Joey entered into a contract of marriage on October 30,
1998 at the office of the Municipal Mayor of Alilem, Ilocos Sur, solemnized by
Hon.Samson E. Bangaoil. The two met at the Regional Training Center,
Teachers Camp, Baguio City where they were both police trainees. In the
evening when they first met, petitioner and respondent together with their
friends went out for a karaoke.
The petitioner and respondent became romantically involved
immediately after the Karaoke night through the matchmaking efforts of
their companions. Such situation went on several occasions to the point
where the two have sexual intercourse and such did happened for several
times resulting to the pregnancy of the respondent.
At the training school, the respondent and the petitioner were
pressured to marry each other because to do otherwise would result to their
dismissal from the service. They begot three (3) children.

The following allegations of the petitioner as follows: a) That during their relationship before the marriage.PETITIONERS ALLEGATIONS: Petitioner alleged that at the time of the celebration of marriage. RESPONDENTS COUNTER-ALLEGATIONS a) Respondent alleges that there was no forced marriage that transpired between them. although the two have their own house. She would in many things. live together harmoniously as husband and wife. He also shouts at her profane words which only a dog could take. it was far from perfect and such is evident by the birth of the three (3) children not until when she discovered negative things about her husband. they married because of love and that the petitioner proposed to her and the event was witnessed by their friends and petitioners mother. Respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity and not truly cognitive of her marital obligations. However. prompting him to file the petition. respondent would oftentimes leave their house to stay at her parent’s house for several days because. She often left the children in the care of their yayas. b) They were a happy family for few years. d) Furthermore. He easily got angry over little things to the extent that he will throw and break their things like vases etc. also petitioner alleged that respondent is too dependent on her father that all her decisions in life should be in conformity with those of her father’s. Jenny was a “party girl”. b) Jenny showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a wife and a mother .She preferred to spend more time with her peers on whom she will squander here money. she couldn’t sleep peacefully in their house and that she oftentimes felt suffocated there. She would often go out together with her friends to meet new guys.Petitioner tried everything possible to persuade the respondent to change for the better specially her violent personality so that they could build their family. Jenny does not have ability to decide on her own regarding her decisions in life. she often went out with friends to drink until the wee hours of the nights in various bars in Baguio city. c) She knew before their marriage that joey was hothead but few months after their marriage his temper became uncontrollable. e) Respondent also has plans in going to the USA and leave the petitioner and the children behind . He was always angry every time he got home and frequently vent his anger towards her. c) Respondent is also an incorrible liar. Apparently her decision to marry petitioner was also largely because of her father persuaded her to. After quitting on becoming a police officer. his efforts was all in vain. . according to he.

Jenny is not psychologically incapacitated Article 36 of the Family Code provides that “A marriage contracted by any party who. He presented the testimonies of one supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated. petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers from psychological incapacity. The COURT”S RULING ISSUE: Whether the marriage between the parties is null and void under Art. the respondent went to United States for a vacation. Petitioner’s experts heavily relied on petitioner’s allegations of respondent’s constant partying visits to the and neglect of their children. which served as the bases or underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts. at the time of the celebration was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. The respondent likewise would slapped her in the face. Petitioner’s experts opined that respondent’s alleged habits. and their friend who testify that respondent is a party girl but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently proven. however her husband did not understand her instead create stories about her.and arms. But petitioner’s allegations.d) That she as an insurance agent usually gather her friend at her father’s house in order to persuade them to avail of insurance. In the case at bar. constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of NPD. Given the insufficiency of evidence that respondent actually engaged in the behaviors described as constitutive of NPD. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. when performed constantly to the detriment of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother and wife.36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent or it was the petitioner who is actually suffering from psychological incapacity.legs. Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even prior to the celebration of the marriage that is permanent as to deprive the party of the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was about to assume. were not actually proven. f) That due to their situation. there is no basis for concluding . That such was because of her aim to earn money to help her husband. e) That their fights became frequent because her husband always come home drunk and that there were instances where the petitioner punched and kicked the respondents numerous times on the stomach.

a person who enjoys being domineering. we respectfully move and pray to the HONORABLE COURT that the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between JOEY and JENNY DICHOSO BE DECLARED NULL and VOID ON THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY UNDER ART 36 of THE FAMILY CODE ON ACCOUNT OF PERTITIONER’s PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. Kiwalan observed that the psychological incapacity of the petitioner is GRAVE. although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage. The diagnosed psychological incapacity of the petitioner prevents him from performing his marital duties. it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage. It was the petitioner suffering from psychological incapacity Looking into the result of the Psychological Evaluation conducted by Dr. WHEREFORE. SO ORDERED. SEVERE AND PERMANENT rendering it totally beyond repair despite available treatments and intervention considering the severity of petitioner’s aberrant psychological conditions. (b) juridical antecedence. the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. Also such incapacity could be strengthen by the petitioner’s own mother who testified against her son. The mother testified about her son’s behavior whereby her son goes home drunk and shouts at the respondent. IN Santos vs CA. Dr. Mother also testified that her son becomes violent to the extent that he would hit the respondent. PERVASIVE. Eileen Kiwalan that it was the petitioner who is suffering from Psychological Incapacity it was shown that he was suffering from PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE PERSONALITY DISORDER COMORBID ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER characterized by egocentrism. who is internally brood hostile and oppositional feelings which further pave the way to his aggressive tendencies and impulsive predilection when provoked and which makes him all the more embittered . premises considered. . A fair assessment of the facts would show that respondent was not totally remiss and incapable of appreciating and performing her marital and parental duties. have feelings of superiority and indomitability.that she was indeed psychologically incapacitated. the totality of the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Indeed. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. the court first declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity. even if it were otherwise. Kiwalan thus recommend that the marriage between the parties be declared NULL and VOID on account of the psychological incapacity of the petitioner. sullen and argumentative.disgruntled and delusional in their relationship. SERIOUS. which makes reconciliation between him and his wife very difficult and impossible. emotional weakness. Dr. and (c) incurability. and it must be incurable or.