REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Regional Trial Court of Lanao Del Norte

Branch 11 (RTC)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Petitioner,

– versus - CIVIL CASE NO. S-775

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

MARK GUINAL

Respondent.

x------------------------------------------------x
 MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-

titled case and aver that:

PREFATORY

Man has not invented a reliable compass by which to steer a marriage in its

journey over troubled waters. Laws are seemingly inadequate. Over time, much reliance

has been placed in works of the unseen hand of Him who created all things. Who is to

blame when a marriage fails? This case was commenced by a distraught husband

against her wife who decreed the annulment of the marriage on the ground of

psychological incapacity.

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Jacky Guinal is of legal age, married, and residing on Iligan City, where she

may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court;
2. Defendant Mark Guinal is of legal age, married, and residing also in Iligan City.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mark and Jacky were married on August18 15, 1970 at a church in Linamon. On

January 25, 1995, Mark filed a verified complaint for the declaration of nullity of

marriage alleging that Jacky was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her

essential marital obligations.

Petitioner furthered that he was forced to marry her barely 2 months into their

courtship in light of her accidental pregnancy. He was 21, she was 19. Jacky left their

conjugal abode and sold their house without his consent. Thereafter, she lived with a

certain Engineer Lopez. After cohabiting with Lopez, she contracted a second marriage

with another man. Dr. Solis stated that both Mark and Jacky were psychologically

incapacitated finding that both parties suffered from “utter emotional immaturity”.

II. ISSUE/S OF THE CASE

Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the RTC’s finding of psychological incapacity?

III. ARGUMENTS and DISCUSSIONS

Marriage is the cornerstone of Philippine society and an inviolable social

institution. Separation, annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage can only be

based on grounds stated by law. The Family Code liberalized to a certain extent these

grounds by providing for psychological incapacity as a ground for the declaration of

nullity of a marriage. However, the Family Code did not provide for a definition of the

concept of psychological incapacity nor any examples to illustrate the concept. The

author submits that this is a problem since the lack of definition may be broadened to

encompass any and all circumstances of incompatibility of the spouses and allow the

judges too much discretion to determine when declaration of nullity by virtue of

psychological incapacity is applicable. In view of the lack of definition of the concept of

psychological incapacity in the Family Code, problems arose with regards to its

application and interpretation, leading to many misapplications.

However in this case, it relied on the findings and testimony of Dr. Solis, holding

that Jacky’s emotional immaturity exhibited a behavioral pattern which in psychiatry

constitutes a form of personality disorder that existed at the time of the parties’

marriage but manifested only thereafter. It likewise concurred with Dr. Solis observation

that Jacky’s condition is incurable since it is deeply rooted within the make-up of her

personality. Accordingly, it concluded that Jacky’s could not have known, much more

comprehend the marital obligations she was assuming or, knowing them, could not have

given a valid assumption thereof.

"Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of

the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental – not merely physical – incapacity

that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that

concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as

so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others,34 include their mutual
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and

support. 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.

The Court first declared in Santos v. CA36, that psychological incapacity must be

characterized by: (a) gravity (i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would

be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage); (b) juridical

antecedence (i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,

although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage); and (c)

incurability (i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be

beyond the means of the party involved).

The Court laid down more definitive guidelines in the interpretation and

application of Article 36 of the Family Code in Republic of the Phils. v. CA.

The respondent’s emotional immaturity and irresponsibility could not be

equated with psychological incapacity as it was not shown that these acts are

manifestations of a disordered personality which make her completely unable to

discharge the essential marital obligations of the marital state, not merely due to her

youth, immaturity or sexual promiscuity.

 Based on the evidence presented, there exists insufficient factual or legal basis

to conclude that Jacky’s emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, or even sexual

promiscuity, can be equated with psychological incapacity.

The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, heavily relied on the psychiatric evaluation

report of Dr. Solis which does not, however, explain in reasonable detail how Jacky’s

condition could be characterized as grave, deeply-rooted, and incurable within the

parameters of psychological incapacity jurisprudence. Aside from failing to disclose the

types of psychological tests which she administered on Jacky, Dr. Solis failed to identify

in her report the root cause of Jacky’s condition and to show that it existed at the time

of the parties' marriage. Neither was the gravity or seriousness of Jacky’s behaviour in

relation to her failure to perform the essential marital obligations sufficiently described

in Dr. Solis report. Further, the finding contained therein on the incurability of Jacky's

condition remains unsupported by any factual or scientific basis and, hence, appears to

be drawn out as a bare conclusion and even self-serving. In the same vein, Dr. Solis

testimony during trial, which is essentially a reiteration of her report, also fails to

convince the Court of her conclusion that Jacky was psychologically incapacitated.

Verily, although expert opm10ns furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological

temperament of parties are usually given considerable weight by the courts, the

existence of psychological incapacity must still be proven by independent evidence.

After poring over the records, the counsel of the defendant, however, does not find any

such evidence sufficient enough to uphold the court a quo's nullity declaration.
 The counsel of the petitioner contends that Jacky’s refusal to live with Mark and

to assume her duties as wife and mother as well as her emotional immaturity;

irresponsibility and infidelity do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that

would justify the nullification of the parties' marriage. Indeed, to be declared clinically or

medically incurable is one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to perform one's duties is

another? To hark back to what has been earlier discussed; psychological incapacity

refers only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of

an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. In the

final analysis, the Court does not perceive a disorder of this nature to exist in the

present case. Thus, for these reasons, coupled too with the recognition that marriage is

an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family, the instant petition is

hereby granted.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for this Honourable court to GRANT the

petition and to REVERSE and SET ASIDE The Decision dated June 2, 2005 and Resolution

dated February 3, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69103. Accordingly,

DISMISS the complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage filed under Article 36 of the

Family Code.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Zamboanga Del Nortem Philippines, February 18,2006

 By: ATTY. Jo Vanne Trivilegio

Trivilegio and Trivilegio and Trivilegio Law Firm

#7 Blumentritt St Guimbal, Iloilo

PTR No. 1247838 1-20-2012 Davao City

IBP No. 911117 1-21-2012 Davao City

Roll No. 07218

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. ANDOKS BALIWAG INASAL

Counsel for Defendant

Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,

Tabuk City, Kalinga