Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

6th Judicial Region
Branch 38
Iloilo City

SHARMAINE N. DEATRAS,
Petitioner,
Civil Case No. 14344
-versus- For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code
VAL JUSTIN R. DEATRAS,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

COMES NOW RESPONDENT, through counsel, unto this Honorable

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

1. ADMITS the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2 , 3, 4 and 5;

2. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 6 for respondent never showed

instability, psychological or otherwise;

3. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(a) for respondent was not

emotionally immature. Respondent is a responsible husband who knows and
satisfies the demands of his married life;

4. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(b) for respondent currently has a

job as a sales representative. The truth of the matter is that the plaintiff belittles
said job, since the respondent was only paid on a commission basis;

5. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(c) because it is the respondent

who pays the monthly rental of the room where respondent and the petitioner
lived;

6. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(d) for respondent was serious in

looking for a job which he successfully had after going through several
interviews;

7. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(e) for respondent was actually

employed as a sales representative of drug supplies. Respondent could be seen
at the house of his parents because he delivers drug supplies to a nearby
drugstore.

8. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(f) for such behavior described by

the petitioner as crying like a child was never exhibited by the respondent.
Respondent never said that he was just pretending to have a job nor that his
parents can support their needs. The truth of the matter is that the petitioner was
not satisfied that her husband was just a sales representative;

9. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(g) for respondent was never

dependent on his mother even before his marriage to the plaintiff until now;

10. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(h) for respondent was never
physically violent towards the petitioner;

11. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(i) for respondent and petitioner
would have sex for at least thrice a week, and even more often during the first
five years of their marriage.

12. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(j) for respondent was willing to rent
a room away from his parents’ residence as what the petitioner requested, but
they were not able to find a place that would suit the preferences of the
petitioner.

13. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 7(k) for respondent for respondent
tried to follow the petitioner but it was her who does not want him to be with her;

14. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 8 for respondent was psychologically

capable of performing his basic marital covenants to herein petitioner, but it was
the petitioner who shunned him away;

15. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 9 for respondent was not and was
never psychologically incapacitated at any relevant time.
16. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 10 for respondent was able to fulfill
his essential marital obligations.

17. DENIES the allegations in paragraph 11 for respondent tried to pursue

and appease petitioner but it was her who does not want the respondent back.
Petitioner took no means of trying to save the marriage and immediately resorted
to this judicial recourse when their marital problem was not so grave.

18. Article 1 of the Family code states that Marriage is a special contract of
permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with
law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the
family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences,
and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation.

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 Sharmaine N. Deatras and respondent Val Justin R.

Deatras for failure to show proof that it is null and void under Article 36 of the

Family Code.

Iloilo City, January 26, 2019.

ATTY. LEONEL O. OCANA

Arguelles Bldg., Jaro, Iloilo City
Roll No.: 110039
PTR No.: 1116789 06-30-2015 Iloilo City
IBP No.: 176295 06-30-2015 Iloilo City
MCLE Compliance No.: 455924 08-05-2015

Copy hereof received this day of February 27, 2020

COPY FURNISHED THROUGH PERSONAL SERVICE

ATTY. VICTORIA PADILLA

Counsel for the Petitioner