REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 45
CITY OF MANILA

JEDIA RAYOS SANDOVAL,

Petitioner,

-versus- Civil Case No. 93825

For: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage under Art. 36
of Family Code

CHRISTIAN SOLIS SANDOVAL,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ANSWER

RESPONDENT, through counsel, unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully avers the following in response to the
Petition for Declaration of Nullity.

ADMISSION AND DENIALS

1. He admits the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the

Petition;

2. He specifically denies each and every material

allegations in paragraphs 6 to 13;

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3. As and by way of way of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,

defendant replead and incorporate the foregoing averments
and further alleges:

4. Paragraph 6 of the petition is denied for lack of

1
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the same.

5. Paragraph 7 of the petition is denied. It is true that

respondent gave up his job at F.D. Roque & Associates as
Assistant Manager but said decision was made in
consideration of the better offer in terms of a much better
salary and benefits by another company to which he is
presently employed. There is therefore no truth to petitioner’s
allegation that she is the lone breadwinner of the family. Yes,
respondent do gamble. But the same was made only
occasionally and in moderation and as a form of relaxation.
Meanwhile, respondent vehemently deny being a womanizer.
Respondent also deny resorting to drugs and alcohol abuse
during his cohabitation with petitioner. If at all, he drinks
liquor only occasionally and in moderation. The allegation that
respondent prefers the company of friends and alleged flings
are not true and nothing but a product of petitioner’s fertile
imagination. While it is true that respondent go out with
friends, the same is only occasional and for the purpose of
relaxation. The allegation on the other hand, that respondent
did not want to have a child is being belied by the fact that
their marriage bore a child which the petitioner herself
admitted in her petition. The allegation that respondent
frequently initiate a fight with petitioner even on smallest
things is not totally true. While indeed respondent and
petitioner have some quarrels, this is due to some
misunderstanding, which are mutual and normal in a
relationship of husband and wife. Be it noted finally, that if
indeed as alleged by petitioner that respondent is into drugs,
alcohol abuse, and a womanizer, the family could have been
bankrupt and wanting in means of subsistence. The same is
not the case as petitioner even admit in the petition that the
marriage has no debts.

6. Paragraph 8 of the petition is denied for lack of

knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the said averments therein.

7. Paragraph 9 of the petition is also denied. The fact of

the matter is that it was petitioner who refuses to kiss, see eye
to eye, hold and hug respondent for reason/s only known to
petitioner. Contrary to the allegation in the petition, it was
petitioner who lacks passion, respect and romance in the
marital relationship. It is also not true that respondent
physically hurts petitioner by throwing things on her and
shoving her around. Respondent, contrary to the allegation did
2
not abandon petitioner since May 2019 as the truth of the
matter is that it was petitioner who insisted that respondent
leave their place of abode.

8. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 are likewise denied for

lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the averments made therein.

9. Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defense that

the petition FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

10. Article 36 of the Family Code considered as a patent

nullity marriages where one or both parties are psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations
of marriage.

11. Jurisprudence defines psychological incapacity as a

serious disorder in the personality make-up of a party
rendering such party utterly insensitive or unable to give
meaning and significance to marriage and to assume the
essential marital obligations that go with it; mere failure or
neglect to perform said obligations will not suffice. 1

12. The Supreme Court, in the case, Santos vs. Court of

Appeals,2 numerated the three (3) requirements of
psychological incapacity to include: (a) juridical antecedence,
(b) gravity, and (c) incurability.

13. The same Court, in the earlier cited case of Republic vs.
CA, Molina, defines each requirement to wit:

a) Juridical Antecedence - It must be existing at the

time of the celebration of the marriage and not
subsequent thereto;
b) Gravity - It must be grave enough to bring about a
party’s disability to assume the essential obligations
of marriage; and
c) Incurability - It must be permanent and cannot be
cured by any treatment.

14. A cursory reading of the petition would show that it fails

to sufficiently substantiate the element of juridical
antecedence, gravity and incurability.

15. Petitioner herself alleged and admitted in the petition

1
Republic vs. CA, Molina, 268 SCRA 198
2
310 Phil. 21 (1995)

3
that the alleged instances of psychological incapacity have
manifested only after the marriage and are not and did not at
the time of the celebration of the marriage. Hence, juridical
antecedence is absent.

16. Petitioner mentioned in the petition alleged instances or

manifestation of psychological incapacity such as respondents
giving up his job, his being compulsive gambler, being a
womanizer, resort to drugs and alcohol abuse, his refusal to
kiss, hold, hug and see her eye to eye, his refusal to have a
child, and initiating a fight on smallest of reasons, etc.

17. The Supreme Court, in the same case of Republic vs.

CA and Molina, declares that psychological incapacity is an
illness which 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. 3

18. In the case at bar, no evidence was advanced that

respondent was unable to comply or assume the essential
obligations of marriage. In fact, petitioner herself has
admitted that the marriage has no debts and that her
cohabitation with respondent bore a child. The other
instances mentioned, such as being a womanizer, gambler,
drug and alcohol abuse, are grounds for legal separation and
not for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity. Thus, gravity as an element of
psychological incapacity is also not present.

19. In the absence of the element of gravity to declare the

marriage as a nullity on the ground psychological incapacity,
it follows that the third and last element if incurability is
likewise non-existent. If at all, what exists here are instances
of unsatisfactory marriage. And to this, the Supreme Court, in
one case, declares:

“An unsatisfactory marriage, however is not null

and void marriage. No less that the Constitution
3
G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198

4
 recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of
family; it decrees marriage as legally inviolable and
protects from dissolution at the whim of the
parties.”4

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that judgment be rendered dismissing the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between
petitioner Jedia Rayos Sandoval and respondent Christian
Solis Sandoval 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.

City of Manila, April 6, 2020

ATTY. EDUARDO C. ISIDERIO

Counsel for Respondent
123 Neo-Vista Subdivision, Deparo,
Caloocan City
Roll No. 12345
IBP NO. 23456/1-3-2020/ Caloocan City
PTR No. 34567/1-3-2016/ Caloocan City
MCLE Compliance No.VI 6789
Until April 22, 2022

Copy furnished through personal service:

ATTY. JOHN CARLO A. CAIMBON

Commission Serial No. 82013
Until December 31, 2020
Roll of Attorney 45789
IBP. No.4444/January 1, 2005/Manila
P.T.R. No. 4445/March 20, 2020
Roll No. 4489
4
Perez-Ferraris vs Ferraris, GR 162368 (July 17, 2006)

5
 PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Julien V. Isiderio, messenger of Atty Eduardo C. Isiderio,

herein counsel for Respondent Christian Solis Sandoval,
hereby certify that I personally delivered Respondent’s answer
dated September April 6, 2020 to Petitioner Jedia Rayos
Sandoval, 1029 Dagupan St., Tondo, Manila. The Answer was
received by the Petitioner herself.

JULIEN V. ISIDERIO
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of April

6, 2020 in the City of Manila, affiant exhibited to me his Postal
I.D. No. 78990 issued at Caloocan City.

ATTY. RONIL OTAN

Notary Public
PTR No. 5642/ 11-5-2016
IBP No. 8162/ 11-10-2016
MCLE Compliance No. 7856
Roll No. 7855

Doc No. 11
Page No. 26
Book No. 3
Series of 2020

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Makati City