Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

8th Judicial Region
Branch 7
Tacloban City, Leyte

RABIYA MATEO-MAGNO
Petitioner,

-versus- SP. Proc. No. 14344

For: Declaration of
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
JAMES S. MAGNO
Respondent,

X-------------------------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM

Respondent, James S. Magno, through counsel, hereby

submits his memorandum unto this Honorable Court, with
the following statements:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This is a civil case for Declaration of Nullity of

marriage between RABUYA MATEO-MAGNO and
JAMES S. MAGNO.

2. The plaintiff’s petition was filed on May 29, 2021.

On May 31, 2021, the Court’s duly authorized
sheriff duly served a copy of the petition to the
respondent- through personal service. Respondent
filed his ANSWER with the Honorable Court on
June 14, 2021.

3. On June 28, 2021, the Office of the Solicitor

General formally entered their appearance for the
State. Along with said entry, the Solicitor General

Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 1 of 10
 formally deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor
for the City of Tacloban - to assist in the handling of
this case as its duly authorized representative.

4. As ordered by the Court, the attending City

Prosecutor, Hon. Atty. Franzia Rey C. Aspas, issued
a Prosecutor’s investigation report - dated July 19,
2021, with a finding of no collusion between the
parties. Thereafter, pre-trial conference was set and
terminated on September 24, 2021. Admitted fact/s
was stipulated, issues were defined and the
documents were marked. After the pre-trail of this
case, trial on the merits ensued.

5. On November 26, 2021, after presentation of the

Plaintiff’s witnesses, Respondent, presented himself
as first witness on January 21, 2022.On March 18,
Respondent presented Jessa Salameda as his
impartial witness being a close friend of both
Plaintiff and Respondent prior to and during their
marriage. Their testimonies were offered and
admitted to prove that Respondent, James S. Magno
is not psychologically incapacitated to perform the
obligations of marriage and that said incapacity
existed prior to the marriage as well as incurable.

6. On April 11, 2022, respondent submitted his

Formal Offer of his documentary evidence. Said
evidence was subsequently admitted by this
Honorable Court. Upin admission of his evidence,
the Respondent rested his case. The Office of the
City Prosecutor, manifested that the state has no
evidence to present. As such, said case is now
submitted to this Court’s resolution. This
memorandum is hereby submitted to bolster the
denial of this petition.

ISSUE

The main issue of this Petition is whether the

Respondent, James S. Magno is psychologically
incapacitated, to warrant a declaration of nullity of his
marriage last September 5, 2018 to Plaintiff, Rabiya
Mateo-Magno.
Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 2 of 10
 ARGUMENTS
In cases for declaration of nullity of marriages, the
Supreme Court has laid down the key elements required to
nullify a marriage on the basis of psychological incapacity –

"in Santos v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained

psychological incapacity as follows: “(P)sychological
incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental (not
physical) incapacity that causes a party So de truly
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the
parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article
68 of the Family Code, 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 marriage1. x x

Further, "x x x psychological incapacity pertains to

the inability to understand the obligations of marriage, as
opposed to a mere inability to comply with them x x x.“

Jurisprudence consistently adhered to the guidelines in

appreciating psychological incapacity cases set in Molina 2. We
quote the fairly recent iteration of the guidelines in Republic v.
Pangasinan3 for reference:

x x x (P)sychological incapacity must be

characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and
(c) incurability. Thereafter, in Molina, the Court laid
down more definitive guidelines in the disposition of
psychological incapacity cases, to wit:

(1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of the

marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity
must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven

1
Santos vs. CA G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995
2
Republic vs. CA and Molina G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997
3
Republic vs. Pangasinan GR No. 214077, Aug 10, 2016
Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 3 of 10
 by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at
“the time of the celebration” of the marriage.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be
medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring
about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife, as well
as Articles 220, 22a and 22a of the same Code
in regard to parents and their children. Such
non-- complied marital obligation(s) must also
be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and
included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive,
should be given great respect by our courts.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state. No decision
shall be handed down unless the Solicitor
General issues a certification, which will be
quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his
reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the
case may be, to the petition. In sum, a person's
psychological incapacity to comply with his or
her essential obligations, as the case may be, in
marriage must be rooted on a medically or
clinically identifiable grave illness that is
incurable and shown to have existed at the time
of marriage, although the manifestations thereof
may only be evident after marriage. x x x.

In the succeeding arguments, the Respondent will prove

that not all of the requirements have been established for the
nullification of the marriage to Plaintiff.

DEFENDANT, JAMES S. MAGNO’S PERSONALITY

TEST RESULT AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS
EMPLOYED BY DR. KRISTINE MARITINEZ ALLEGING
HIS LOW MENTAL ABILITY AND INDIFFIRENT
BEHAVIOR FAILS TO SHOW THAT SUCH CONDITION
Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 4 of 10
 IS GRAVE, INCURABLE AND ACCOMPANIED WITH
ANTECEDENTS.

Finally, as the gist of Plaintiff’s petition, she presented

Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Kristine Martinez as expert witness.
Dr. Martinez’ evaluation of the Respondent was summarily
stated as (in Annex E- Psychological Report):

“1. James' low mental ability skills directly

influences his low presentation of problem solving
capability that manifests in his extreme dependence
towards her mother. Interpretation on his personality
test shows that James is dispassionate,
unresponsive and unsacrificing.
2. James’ behavior was evident even prior to his
marriage. He refused to engage in sexual contact
with Rabiya and is not reciprocative of his partner’s
affection. He was also observed to extremely rely on
his mother in all of his decisions and routine. He
neglects his partner in all aspects and depends on
his mother even though he is an adult.”

This alleged disorder does not make James S. Magno

incapacitated to assume his obligations towards marriage.
Dr. Martinez merely testified that Respondent’s alleged
psychological incapacity is based on his low mental ability and
his indifference. Dr. Martinez did not detail this finding. She
made no effort to look into and testify on defendant’s past life,
attitudes, habits and character to explain defendant’s alleged
psychological incapacity as required by this Honorable Court
in the case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina4,
268 SCRA 198 (1998). Furthermore, it can be refuted that Dr.
Martinez’ evaluation is inaccurate as Respondent, James S.
Magno, is working as supervisor which would entail a person
of higher intelligence to be able to perform such functions
associated with such position i.e. problem solving, decision-
making, and communication proficiency.
Dr. Martinez also failed to establish that the alleged
disorder clinically and medically permanent. As argued by the
Respondent, he has to attend to sick mother, being an only
child. He even tried to bring the Plaintiff with him to his
numerous visits to his mother, yet Plaintiff always declines to
4
Ibid p.3
Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 5 of 10
go with him. This also disproves that he is dispassionate,
unresponsive and unsacrificing.
During the trial, Dr. Martinez also failed to explain in
detail why the defendant’s alleged disorder is grave nor was
she able to identify the disorder Respondent is suffering from
that would warrant psychological incapacity.
Respondent’s disorder is, therefore, not grave, not
incurable and has no antecedents.

RESPONDENT HAS ADEQUATELY PROVED THAT HE IS

CAPACITATED TO PERFORM HIS MARITAL
OBLIGATIONS
In addition, the testimony of the couple’s close friend,
Jessa Salameda, supports the Respondent’s testimony that he
made efforts to pay attention and to show his love and
adoration to Plaintiff, however, due to Plaintiff’s bitterness, it
still fell short of Plaintiffs expectations. Ms. Salameda was able
to narrate that it is not the lack effort on the part of the
Respondent but rather, on the exacting demands of Plaintiff
that caused the rift between the spouses. Ms. Salameda, being
a close family friend, was privy to the sex life of the couple as
Plaintiff would often complain to her that she is not satisfied
with only one round of lovemaking with the Respondent.

The Plaintiff did not rebut the Respondent’s testimony

that the marriage was consummated, contrary to her initial
allegation in her compliant.
Respondent had shown that he is capable of fulfilling
his marital obligations and that the valued the marriage as he
even opposed the petition for annulment of his marriage and
participated in the trial of the case. He would also send gifts
and sweet nothings for the Plaintiff just to make up for the
time he is away to take care of his mother. He also makes sure
that Plaintiff is always provided for and has everything that
she needs.
As a proof of his willingness to work on the marriage,
Respondent even attended the evaluation with Dr. Martinez,
thinking it was a marriage counselling session that would
soften the stance of the Plaintiff and in the hopes of
strengthening his marriage to Plaintiff.

Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 6 of 10
 Respondent did not leave the conjugal home, rather, it
was the Plaintiff who left the conjugal home and started
residing at her sister’s house. He even tried to stop and begged
the Plaintiff not to leave the conjugal dwelling.

The testimony of the maid, Noemi Montilla, is self-serving as

she is partial to the cause of the Plaintiff, because it was the
Plaintiff who hired her.

WITH THE REQUIRED QUANTUM OF PROOF,

RESPONDENT HAS PROVEN THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT
PSYCHOLOGOCALLY INCAPACITATED TO WARRANT THE
NULLITY OF HIS MARRIAGE TO THE PETITIONER.
This petition is a civil case. And for these type of cases,
the Supreme Court has determined the needed quantum of
proof through the following jurisprudence.
"Land Bank failed to prove that the amount
allegedly "miscredited“ to Oñate‘s account came from
the proceeds of the pre-terminated loans of its cIients. it
is worth emphasizing that in civil cases, the party
making the allegations has the burden of proving them
by preponderance of evidence. Mere allegation is not
sufficient.”5 "Spouses Monteiro, as plaintiffs in the
original case, had the burden of proof to establish their
case by a preponderance of evidence, which is the
weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on
either side, synonymous with the term "greater weight
of the evidence. “Preponderance of evidence is evidence
which is more convincing to the court as worthy of
belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.“ 6
"In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party
making allegations has the burden of proving them by
a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, parties must
rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the
weakness of the defense offered by their proponent.
This principle equally holds true, even if the defendant
had not been given the opportunity to present evidence
because aha default order the extent of the relief that
may be granted can only be as much as has been
alleged and proved with preponderant evidence

5
LBP vs. Oñate G.R. No. 192371 January 15, 2014
6
Dimaguila vs. Spouses Monteiro, G.R. No. 201011 January 27, 2014
Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 7 of 10
 required under Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Revised
Rules of Evidence.
Preponderance of evidence is die weight, credit
and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and
is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
"greater weight of the evidence“ or "greater weight of
the credible evidence.“ Preponderance of evidence is a
phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of
the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the
court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto.”
Through Respondent’s testimony and the testimony of
his witnesses, including the testimony of medical expert- Dr.
Martinez upon cross-examination, he proved that his
condition is not grave, incurable and the antecedents were not
established to fulfill the requirements of psychological
incapacity as held in the Molina7 case. Respondent has proved
that he gives the love and support that is expected of him as a
husband and tried to show to the Plaintiff his adoration for
her. And as corroborative witness, Jessa Salameda’s testimony
was critical to show to the Honorable Court the real reason of
the Plaintiff’s complaint- her insecurity and her almost
childish demands. Adelina Tuazon's testimony must be
considered as impartial, fair and truthful for she has no
personal interest in this case. With the summation of all
testimonies and documentary exhibits, there exist a
preponderance of evidence for the denial of declaration of
nullity in this case.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, it is
respectfully prayed that, after due proceedings, a decision be
adjudicated which:

1. Orders the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant

be declared null and void from its inception, based on
the Defendant‘s psychological incapacity to perform
the essential marital obligations in pursuant to
ARTICLE 36 (in relation to ARTICLE 45) of the FANILY
CODE of the Philippines.

7
Ibid p. 3
Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 8 of 10
 2. Orders the LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF
ZUMARRAGA, SANAR and the PHILIPPINE
STATISTICS OFFICE- REGIONAL OFFICE VIII to
cancel the CERTIFICATE OF CARRIAGE with
REGISTRY NO. 95-17, as executed between the
Plaintiff and Defendant last 22 January 1995, in their
marriage record.

3. Orders that payment of monthly support by the

Defendant in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos
(15,000 php) for the Plaintiff and their Mo (2) children.

4. Declares that sole custody of Plaintiff and Defendant's

children be awarded to the Plaintiff.

Other reliefs and awards deemed equitable are likewise

prayed.

Most respectfully prayed. July 21, 2022. Tacloban City.

Philippines.

ATTY. CARDO A. DALISAY

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
Notary Public- Tacloban City , Dec. 31, 2022
P.T.R. No. 1234567-Tacloban City, June 21, 2022
I.B.P No. 7654321-Tacloban City, August 23, 2021
MCLE No. IV 0012345 -Tacloban City, Feb 21, 2021
Roll of Attorney No. 12345

Copy Furnished:

CITY PROS. FRANZIA RAY ASPAS

ATTENDING PROSECUTOR
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
TACLOBAN CITY
BULWAGAN NG KATARUNGAN
MAGSAYSAY, TACLOBAN CITY
REGISTRY RECEIPT No: RE 444333222111
DATE:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 9 of 10
134 AMORSOLO ST., LEGASPI VILLAGE
MAKATI CITY
REGISTRY RECEIPT No: RE444333222112
DATE:

ATTY. MARICHU CABAÑERO-TAPACION

Counsel for the Defense
Brgy. Sagkahan
Tacloban City, Leyte
REGISTRY RECEIPT No: 444333222113
DATE:

EXPLANATION FOR FILING AND SERVING

THRU REGISTERED MAIL

In accordance to RULE 13, SECTION 11 of the 1997

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the foregoing Memorandum is
being filed and served thru registered mail due to distance
involved and inadequacy of manpower for personal service.

ATTY. CARDO A. DALISAY

Trial Memorandum
Mateo-Magno vs. Magno
SP. Proc. No. 14344
Page 10 of 10