REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MAKATI CITY
Branch 140

ISABELLE QUIRINO SAN

JUAN
Petitioner,

-versus- Civil Case No. 17-1000

For: Judicial Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage with Prayer for Sole
Custody of Minor Child

MIKHAIL LIRA SAN JUAN

Respondent.
x---------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent, MIKHAIL LIRA SAN JUAN, through the

undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully avers the following in response to the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity:

1. Respondent ADMITS paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(f), and 6(g) of the

Petition insofar as personal circumstances are concerned.

2. Respondent ADMITS coming home during the wee hours of the

morning, as cited in paragraph 6(h) of the Petition, but DENIES
that it is because he spends time with his “barkada.” The truth
is, the Respondent works overtime to meet the standards set by
his employees. Attached as Annexes “1” to “1-O” are copies of
the Employee Data Sheet of CONVERGYS from the year 2013 to
2016.

3. Respondent ADMITS sleeping during the daytime and leaving

for work just as when Petition would arrive from school, as cited
in paragraph 6(i) of the Petition.

4. Respondent ADMITS the allegations found in paragraph 6(j) of

the Petition, but DENIES the allegation regarding his regular
drinking sprees with friends. The truth is, CONVERGYS
requires its employees to undergo drug and alcohol test every
month. The result of the drug and alcohol tests will factor in the
performance evaluation sheets of the employees. Needless to

1
 say, habitual alcoholism will reflect in the performance
evaluation sheet of the employee. Considering that
CONVERGYS maintains a high-standard in quality of work,
habitual alcoholism is a ground of their dismissal as reflected on
their employee handbook.

Attached as Annexes “2” to “2-D” are the copies of the

Respondent’s Performance Evaluation Sheet from 2013 to 2016.
Further attached as Annex “3” is a copy of CONVERGYS.
Further marked as Annex “3-A” is the annotation about the
company’s ground for dismissal of employees.

5. Respondent ADMITS the allegations in paragraph 6(l) of the

Petition.

6. Respondent DENIES the allegations in paragraph 6(m) of the

Petition, the truth of the matter being that the respondent has
always been open to discussing their marital issues as a couple.
However, there would be instances wherein the Petitioner
would bring up the same issues over and over again to no avail,
so the Respondent would just defer the conversation to avoid
quarrelling with the Petitioner. In fact, the parties has undergone
marriage counseling from September 2014 to January 2017 at the
office of Dr. Ramon Ozaeta in the Center for Family Ministries.
Dr. Ozaeta issued us a certification to the effect that both parties
are exerting efforts to make their marriage work. Attached as
Annexes “4” to “4-BB” are copies of the receipts paid before the
office of Dr. Ozaeta from September 2014 to January 2017.
Further attached as Annex “5” is a copy of the Certification
issued by Dr. Ozaeta dated 14th January 2017.

7. Respondent ADMITS the allegations in paragraph 6(n) of the

Petition as regards the change in residence, but DENIES that his
continued carefree lifestyle resulted in more complications to
their relationship.

8. Respondent vehemently DENIES the allegations set in

paragraphs 6(o), 6(p) and 6(q) of the Petition. The truth is that
the respondent has a gay brother named JHAMIR SAN JUAN
The respondent is close to his brother to the extent that the gay
friends of his brother are also his. Despite his closeness to the gay
community, respondent has acted nor thought of questioning his
sexuality. Attached as Annexes “6” and “7” are copies of Sworn
Statements executed by the respondent’s gay brother JHAMIR
SAN JUAN and their gay friend ALONZO MORALES,
respectively.

2
9. Respondent vehemently DENIES the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 6(s) and 6(t) of the Petition. The truth is, the
Petitioner did not confront him about the alleged incident that
happened in the aforementioned birthday party.

10.Respondent vehemently DENIES any physical violence inflicted

upon the petitioner as alleged in paragraphs 6(u), 6(v), 6(w), 6(x),
and 6(z). The truth is, the Petitioner is a nymphomaniac. There
are instances when she would demand the Respondent to inflict
pain to her body while having sexual intercourse. The same was
diagnosed by Dr. Ozaeta and was also written in the
Certification previously marked as Annex “5”.

11.Respondent vehemently DENIES the allegations in paragraph

6(y) of the Petition. The truth is that due to the sexual desires of
the petitioner, she asked the respondent to leave their family
abode and act like they were strangers and meet at a restaurant
on different dates. Every meeting the parties had, they portrayed
different people. This method was advised by Dr. Ozaeta in his
certification to counter their thoughts of cheating with each
different persons. During their lunch or dinner, the parties
would go to a motel for sexual intercourse. Attached as Annexes
“8” to “8-J” are copies of the receipts from various motels like
Sogo, Victoria Court, and Nice Hotel.

12.The Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defenses the

following:

13.1 Contrary to what the Petitioner would have the court

believe, the parties had a very loving relationship
during the beginning of their marriage. Conflicts
merely started to arise when Respondent started to
spend more time at work.

13.2 Initially, the petty fights were because of the schedule

and the amount of time the Respondent spends at work.
The reason behind respondent sleeping during daytime
and would leave for work just as when Petitioner
arrives from school is because of his job as a call center
agent. Respondent’s job as a call center agent requires
him to work on shifting schedule, sometimes during
graveyard shift. Moreover, depending on Respondent’s
schedule, he would at times opt to stay late at work in
order to earn more to support his family, by way of
overtime pay and night differentials.

13.3 Eventually, the fights became more frequent and more

serious. Petitioner would take offense at the
Respondent spending time with his friends, to the
3
 extent that she would put malice with the Respondent
spending time with his friends who are part of the
LGBTQ community.

13.4 Despite their quarrels, they engaged the services of Dr.

Ramon Ozaeta of the Center of Family Ministries for
marriage life counseling. A Certificate was issued by Dr.
Ozaeta to the effect that the parties have resolved their
difference.

13.5 The voluntary leaving of the Respondent from their

family home was due to an agreement with the
Petitioner to fix their marriage. Despite not coming
home, the Petitioner and the Respondent would usually
meet six times a week.

13.6 Moreover, despite living in separate houses,

Respondent would make the effort to constantly visit
his child after their quick rendezvous in motels.
However, most of these attempts are thwarted by either
the Petitioner herself, or other members of their
household.

13.7 This notwithstanding, the Petition failed to establish

that the Respondent is incapable of fulfilling his
essential marital duties. The Petitioner even admits that
during the course of their marriage, the Respondent
was gainfully employed, and that he spent most of his
time with their son, Michelin. Respondent was never
remiss in his duties to support his family and provide
mutual love, respect, and fidelity to his wife.

13.8 Even assuming the truth of the allegations in the

Petition, Respondent cannot be adjudged to be
psychologically incapacitated because of the failure to
substantiate the requirements as set forth in the case of
Santos vs Court of Appeals1.

13.9 Assuming even further that the allegations in the

Petition are true, the Petitioner failed to substantiate her
claims with proof of the Respondents going out with the
“barkada” and his homosexual tendencies.

13.10 Moreover, the due execution of the Petition is being

questioned. While it would be made to appear that the
Petitioner executed the Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage on 31 October 2017, the same was

1 Santos vs, Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112019 dated January 4, 1995)

4
 subscribed and sworn to before a notary public on 10
June 2014. Furthermore, the Petition which was filed
before the Honorable Court of Makati City, it is
appauling to note that the Petitioner copy furnished the
Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the City
Prosecutor. Lastly, the personality of the Petitioner to
file the Petition is also in question considering that the
PTR license of her counsel has already expired.
Considering that the Petition was filed by the law firm
in behalf of their client, the same is a mere SCRAP OF
PAPER for the lack of personality to file the same.

PRAYER

WHEEFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition for

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage be dismissed.

Makati City, Philippines, 12 November, 2017.

BV LAW
Counsel for Respondent
Unit 505 Peninsula Court Bldg.
Makati Ave., cor. Paseo de Roxas
Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City
Tel. No. (+632) 8212959
Email: bvlawoffice@bvlaw.com

By:

MARIA LEONILA B. VILLEGAS

IBP NO. 1053421; December 7, 2016; Makati City
PTR NO. 3803197; January 3, 2017; Makati City
Roll NO.55444
MCLE Compliance V-0006110, February 04, 2015
Tel Nos. (02)7099422 or (02)7033346
Mobile Nos.09258698711/09175704840
mlbvillegas@bvlaw.com

COPY FURNISHED:

JINTANA G. YANTAKOSOL

5
Lyceum Law Offices
2nd floor, 109 L.P. Leviste St.,
Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City

Explanation

The instant Answer with Affirmative Defense was served to the

counsel of the Petitioner through registered mail due to distance, time,
and lack of personnel to effect personal service.

ATTY. MARIA LEONILA B. VILLEGAS