REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Tenth Judicial Region
Branch 1
Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

JUANITA Z. PEREZ
Petitioner.
Civil Case No. 0001-2013-A

-versus- For: Annulment of Marriage and

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

JUAN A. PEREZ
Respondent.

x ---------------------------------------------/

ANSWER
COMES NOW, the respondent through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully submits his answer and avers that:

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner Juanita Z. Perez, is of legal age, married to respondent, Filipino citizen and
with present residence address at Purok 10, Brgy. Ampayon, Butuan City, Philippines.
2. Respondent Juan Z. Perez, is of legal age, married to petitioner, a Filipino citizen, with
residence address at Block 1 Lot 1 Phase 2, Emily Homes, Brgy. Libertad, Butuan City,
Philippines, where he may be served with notices and other processes;
3. This answer is made by the respondent for the purpose of denying the allegations of the
petitioner and show the court his dissent to the annulment of their marriage;
4. Respondent firmly believes that their marriage problems can be solved by means other
than this proceeding.
5. The following are the facts and events showing that the respondent does not suffer
psychological incapacity;
 NON-EXISTENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

A. Respondent’s infidelity (philanderer)

6. Respondent vehemently objects to being labeled as a philanderer. His good looks and
being caring is often misunderstood by several women. They tend to think that he feels
something for them and consequently, rumors about a relationship would spread.
7. Miss Juanita Z. Perez, on the other hand, would easily believe those rumors which are
utterly unsubstantiated. It is only because of the petitioners prejudice and unfounded
jealousy that she could think that those are respondent’s girlfriends.
8. The allegation of an affair with a woman in Taiwan, and continued communication
between respondent and the latter is an outright falsity, uncorroborated by any piece of
evidence.
9. Furthermore, it has been held in Villalon v. Villalon, G.R. No. 167206, November 18,
2005, and other various cases that sexual infidelity, by itself, is not sufficient proof that
petitioner is suffering from psychological incapacity. It must be shown that the acts of
unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered personality which make petitioner
completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
10. Respondent, in his heart and mind, have learned to adore, truly and faithfully, the
petitioner. It is but a big disgrace and irony that he would want a woman other than his
wife. There could be no other woman who could be greater or even just equal the beauty
and personality of his wife.

B. Evaluation by the Clinical Psychologist

11. Respondent’s alleged psychological condition was evaluated indirectly from the
information gathered solely from petitioner and her witnesses. This factual circumstance
evokes the possibility that the information fed to the psychiatrist is tainted with bias for
petitioner’s cause, in the absence of sufficient corroboration.
12. In a similar case, the Court has held that to make conclusions and generalizations on a
spouses psychological condition based on the information fed by only one side, similar to
what we have pointed out in the case at bar, is, to the Courts mind, not different from
admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.
13. The psychologist’s observation on respondent, based on the information offered by
petitioner and her witnesses, does not suffice as a consideration for the conclusion that
respondent was – at the time of their marriage – psychologically incapacitated to enter
into a marital union.
14. Art. 36 of the Family Code, to which petitioner anchored her case refers to a serious
psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage, and
should not be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the
causes therefore manifest themselves.

C. Respondent’s chronic refusal to provide support and consequent abandonment

15. It is utterly false that he does not support his wife and children. This proposition is bereft
of evidence. It is a settled rule that mere allegation is not tantamount to proof.
 16. Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that abandonment of the conjugal dwelling,
even if true, do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply
grounds for legal separation. To constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown
that the abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely
prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations.(Republic
of the Philippines vs. Encelan, G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013.)
17. Respondent believes that the family is the foundation of the nation and the basic social
institution. It should at all times be cherished and protected. It should not be shattered by
mere misunderstanding brought about by insecurities and unfounded jealousy.

D. Conclusion

18. The Supreme Court held in Dimayuga-Larena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159220,
September 22 2008 that psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of
marriage must be characterized by the following elements:

(a) Grave – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;

(b) Juridical Antecedence – 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) Incurable and Permanent – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise,
the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
19. The allegations of petitioner, however, failed to show that the respondent’s capacity is
grave, incurable and permanent, and has juridical antecedence.
20. Respondent may have committed faults as a husband and as father but those were not
enough to severe the relationship tied before our Supreme God. What God has joined
together, let no one separate.
21. Respondent may have caused few bad memories, but petitioner must not forget the
thousand good memories that they had together. Those times when every single moment
spent together is like a dream come true. Thus, instead of thinking about separation, why
not pursue the path to reconciliation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent most respectfully prays to

this Honorable Court that the petition for the annulment of marriage and declaration of the
nullity of marriage filed by JUANITA Z. PEREZ be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted.

Butuan City, Philippines, this 15th day of February 2016.

 ANTIGUA AND PALER LAW FIRM
Unit 2, 4th floor, XCZ Building
Montilla Blvd, 8600 Butuan City
Telefax: (085) 324-5637

By:

Atty. Alec Vladimir Paler

Counsel for the Respondent
IBP No. 79686574 12-19-2012 Butuan City
PTR No. 88908768 01-03-2013 Butuan City
TIN 546-833-876
Roll No. 1798578, Page No. 988, Book LXI
MCLE Compliance No. V- 13428
Mobile No. 092134567811

VERIFICATION

I, Juan Z. Perez, of legal age, married to petitioner, a Filipino citizen, with residence
address at Block 1 Lot 1 Phase 2, Emily Homes, Brgy. Libertad, Butuan City, Philippines., under
oath, depose and state;

1. I am the respondent in this case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of this pleading;

3. I have fully read and understood the same;

4. That the allegations contained therein are true and correct based on my personal
knowledge and on authentic documents;

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I hereby set my hand this 6th day of December
2013 in Butuan City, Philippines.

JUAN Z. PEREZ
Respondent
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in Butuan City, this 28th day of January,
2016 by Juan Z. Perez with CTC No. 123456 issued on January 15, 2016 at Butuan City, and
with Passport No. 9876534 issued on January 1, 2015 at Manila, Philippines valid until January
1, 2025.

Atty. Emilia Celestine Paler

NOTARY PUBLIC
J.C. Aquino Avenue, Butuan City
Commission Serial No. 5637395
Until December 31, 2016
Roll of Attorney 86737395/3.15.2010
IBP No. 1231443/12.30.15/Butuan City
PTR No. 234235/1.5.16/ Butuan City
MCLE Compliance No. V- 13428
TIN 131-0000-13-59

Doc. No. 52;

Page No. 89;
Book No. 24;
Series of 2016.