REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH ____

JUAN P. DELA CRUZ

Petitioner,

SP No. R – MKT - 17 –
-versus- 11900 – CV
FOR: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code
MARIA B. DELA CRUZ
Respondent.
X-------------------------------X

ANSWER

COMES NOW, Respondent, thru the undersigned

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

ADMISSION AND DENIALS

1. She admits the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

6, 7, 11, 22, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35, and 36;

2. She specifically denies each and every material

allegations in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 37, 39, 40
and 41;

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 AS AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
Respondent pleads and incorporate the foregoing averments
and further allege that:

3. The allegations in paragraphs 8 and 9 is denied since

it is Petitioner who promised Respondent that he will
never leave her, will take good care of her during her
pregnancy and become a good father to their child and
husband to his wife multiple times from the moment
they discovered her pregnancy. Petitioner and his
parents even made a “Pamamanhikan” with the family
of the Respondent on October 11, 2008 to ask for her
parent’s permission to marry the Petitioner;

4. Paragraph 10 is denied, for the truth of the matter is

that immediately after marriage, both parties planned
and worked hard to keep their family in its formative
stage. Upon birth, they took care of Sophia and
expressed their unconditional love as parents. The
spouses were spending their bedtime with the
company of each other and even managed to find time
to go out on vacation trips with Sophia;

5. Paragraph 12 is an exaggeration of the true situation

of their marriage. Whilst there are moments that
Respondent became hot tempered and irritable
towards him, those episodes would come to pass with
her approaching or showing openness to settle the
problem with the Petitioner. Respondent strived in her
career for the benefit of bringing home income for the
family. To fulfill their shortcoming in keeping the
household, they mutually agreed to hire a housemaid.
But even with a housemaid, Respondent did not forget
 to spend time caring for Sophia. Respondent’s
inability to attend in few special occasions was not
without reason, she had always explained to the
Petitioner that her workload did not allow her to do so
despite his eagerness to be with the family on those
specific dates;

6. Paragraph 13 is denied because it is entirely

incredulous. It even runs contrary to Petitioner’s
allegation that she was so uncaring and irresponsible.
From one paragraph to another, Petitioner painted
different pictures of her wife to favor his story line. If
Respondent is truly irresponsible as the Petitioner
would want this Honorable Court to believe, why then
she becomes a control freak which makes an
impression that she was in command of all the things
in their household? Why in an instant, the Petitioner
became the submissive husband and a constant victim
of nagging from the Respondent?

7. Petitioner’s allegation in paragraph 14, 15, 16 and 17

is denied for being a paltry justification for his
frequent drinking session and night outs with his
friends in order to avoid talking things out with her.
While admittedly, there are times that Respondent
had become suspicious of the true whereabouts of
Petitioner, those matters happened because there were
few instances that he was caught lying to her. It is in
these instances that Respondent had become mad and
quarrelsome. But it is not as overdrawn as the
Petitioner would like it to be depicted. Because even if
the Petitioner was staying out of the house and
refusing to talk with the Respondent, the latter would
 find ways to communicate with him through the
friends or family members of the former;

8. Contrary to Petitioner’s allegation in paragraph 18, the

cause of their separation in 2011 was not because of
the selfishness, arrogance and grandiose of the
Respondent but of his inability to provide for the needs
of their family. From 2010 to 2012, Petitioner was
jobless and despite Respondent’s urge to find a job to
augment her income, he would always say that he was
not yet ready to work again;

9. The allegations in paragraph 19 are false. While there

is truth in Respondent’s plan to work in the United
States and take Sophia with her, she did not make it
as a threat to force Petitioner to reconcile but because
she was economically pressured by the need to
support their child. What the Respondent wanted with
the Petitioner was his economic contribution in
keeping their family not merely his bodily presence in
the family. What she actually told Petitioner is that:
“Hindi kaya ng sahod kong suportahan si Sophia.
Pinag-iisipan kong kunin ang trabahong inaalok ni
Tito Sonny sa California bilang Assistant Manager at
dahil wala akong mapag-iiwanan sa kaniya, kailangan
ko siyang isama doon. Unless, tulungan mo kami;”

10. Paragraphs 20 and are 21 also denied because

it was a misdescription of Respondent’s true intention.
When the spouses reconciled in 2012 after the
Petitioner finally got a job, they had an agreement that
they would mutually and equally support their family.
Their disagreements are caused by the inequality in
dividing the household duties such as rearing for
 Sophia and economic contribution. Respondent was
getting mad at Petitioner not because of jealousy and
arrogance but because she was keen in asserting that
Petitioner must spend time and money with the child
and the household rather than with his drinking
buddies;

11. Paragraph 22 is admitted since the unresolved

issues between the spouses took the toll on
Respondent’s capacity to handle stress. But
Respondent had managed to rise from that depressing
period of their married life by joining the counseling
and worship session in the “Honor Thy Jesus Bible
Baptist Church,” of Pastor Rosauro De Lara;

12. The consultation with Dr. De Guzman is admitted as

stated in paragraph 26. But Respondent would like to
reserve her right to assail his qualification, credibility and
the veracity of his evaluation on both parties as stated in
the same paragraph as well as in paragraphs 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 34, 37, 38 and 39;

13. Respondent is of the belief that Dr. De Guzman’s findings

is insufficient to establish that they are psychological
incapacititated and are not grave enough to prevent them
from complying with their essential marital obligations;

14. For being unsubstantiated and baseless,

Respondent denies Petitioners claim for damages and
attorney’s fees in paragraph 40 and 41;

15. Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defense

that the petition FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.
 15.1. A cursory reading of the petition would show
that it utterly fails to sufficiently allege the element
of gravity and incurability. In the case of Santos vs.
Court of appeals, the Supreme Court enumerated
the three requirements of psychological incapacity;
(a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability.1

15.2. The petition failed to sufficiently allege that the

supposed root cause of the respondent’s
psychological incapacity is grave and incurable;

15.3. According to the Supreme Court:

Such illness must be grave enough to bring

about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, mild
characteriological peculiarities, mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted
as root causes. The illness must be shown as
downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal,
neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other
words, there is a natal or supervening disabling
factor in the person, an adverse integral element in
the personality structure that effectively
incapacitates the person from really accepting and
thereby complying with the obligations essential to
marriage.2

15.4. Finally: “An unsatisfactory marriage, however

is not null and void marriage. No less that the
Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage and
the unity of family; it decrees marriage as legally

1 310 Phil. 21 (1995)

2 Republic vs Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198
 inviolable and protects from dissolution at the whim
of the parties.”3

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be
rendered dismissing the petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage between petitioner Juan P. Dela Cruz and
respondent Maria B. Dela Cruz and its accompanying claim for
damages and attorney’s fess for failure to show proof that it is
null and void under Article 36 of the family Code.

All other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Makati City, 18 October 2019.

ATTY. ARMAN HERNANDO

Counsel for the Respondent
Unit 123 City & Land Mega Plaza,
ABC Ave. cor. Garnet Road,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1600
Attorney’s Roll No. 77777
PTR No.5612338C/1-9-20/Quezon City
IBP No. AR001268/1-9-20/Quezon City
MCLE Exempt per MCLE Governing Board Order No. 1, s.
2008

Copy furnished through personal service:

Juan P. Dela Cruz

3 Perez-Ferraris vs Ferraris, GR 162368 (July 17, 2006)
Petitioner
212 Calatagan St., San Lorenzo Village,
Makati City, Metro Manila

Republic of the Philippines )

Quezon City ) S.S.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, JUDEL DOLMADES, messenger of ATTY. ARMAN

HERNANDO, herein counsel for Respondent MARIA B. DELA
CRUZ, hereby certify that I personally delivered Respondent’s
Answer dated 18 October 2019, to Petitioner JUAN P. DELA
CRUZ, with address at 212 Calatagan St., San Lorenzo Village,
Makati City. The Answer was received by plaintiff herself.

JUDEL DOLMADES
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 18th day of

October, 2019 at Quezon City, affiant exhibited to me his
POSTAL I.D. NO. 123456 issued at LTO Quezon City,
Philippines.

ATTY. ANGELICA HAOSIAO

 Notary Public
PTR No. 7654321/1-11-15/Q.C.;
IBP No. 209374/1-6-12;
MCLE Compliance No. 4321, May 4, 2017
Roll No. 54321
Tel No. (02) 901-14-88

Doc No. 76
Page No. 91
Book No. 02
Series of 2015

Copy furnished through registered mail:

Atty. Adrianne Mae M. Abadilla

Counsel for the Petitioner
Ground Floor, Manere Bldg. I, V-Luna Corner
Matahimik St., Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village,
1229 Makati City, Metro Manila
Tel. No. (02) 988-1674

Office of the City Prosecutor

16F Makati City Hall (New Bldg.),
JP Rizal, Brgy. Poblacion,
Makati City, Metro Manila

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Rule 13, Sec. 11 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
 A copy of the foregoing Answer was served on Petitioner’s
counsel by registered mail due to time constraints and lack of
messenger to effect personal service.

ATTY. ARMAN HERNANDO

Counsel for Defendant