Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 257
Parañaque City|

Ma. Elena Fernandez,

Petitioner,

Civil Case No.14344-44

- versus –
For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage with an Application
for Support Pendente Lite

Valerio E. Kalaw,
Respondent,
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Petitioner, through counsel, to this Honorable Court, respectfully submits
this Pre-trial Brief as follows:

A. STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE CASE

This is an action filed by Petitioner Ma. Elena Fernandez for declaration of

nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of her
husband, Valerio E. Kalaw, Respondent herein, with an application for support
pendent lite for their minor child, Valerie Kalaw.

Petitioner and Respondent met in college and began a relationship. At that

time, Respondent was working for their family’s restaurant business. The
couple’s relationship stood strong even when Petitioner discovered Respondent’s
habit of cutting classes and taking marijuana. Only Petitioner finished her
university studies, while Respondent was forced to drop out of school in his third
year and immersed himself fully with the family’s restaurant business.
On December 15, 2008, upon Petitioner’s graduation, the couple got
married. At that time, Petitioner was already five months pregnant and employed
in Civicom Alabang.
The couple resided with Respondent’s family in Muntinlupa. When their
first child, Valerie Kalaw was born on August 15, 2009, their financial woes
began. As the couples expenses grew bigger, Respondent’s contributions to the
family budget began to dwindle, and after a while, his contributions completely
stopped. Petitioner then discovered that Respondent had resigned from the family
business. Respondent opted to start his own business, which led him to Mindoro,
away from the family. Unfortunately, his business failed to take flight.
While Petitioner struggled to make ends meet as the single-income earner
of the family, Respondent’s business floundered and he only sent money to
Petitioner sporadically.
Adding to the family’s financial woes was the indifferent attitude of
Respondent towards his family as he did not exert any effort to remain in touch
with them while he was in Mindoro. Eventually, the family moved in with
Petitioner’s mother and petitioner continued to support the family financially.
 When Respondent’s business failed, Respondent refused to go back to
working for his family’s restaurant business. Instead, he began a new business
venture.
Sometime in 2014, Petitioner discovered that Respondent was having an
extra-marital affair with his secretary. Petitioner then came to a realization that
not only was Respondent unable to provide financially for their family, but he
was also remiss in his obligation to remain faithful to her and their family.
In 2015, Petitioner underwent a surgical operation for the removal of a
cyst. Respondent, however, remained indifferent, unconcerned, and inattentive.
In an attempt to salvage the remains of their marriage, upon the initiative
of Petitioner, the couple underwent marriage counseling sessions, but these did
not improve the parties’ relationship and Respondent remained uncooperative.
Thus, Petitioner decided to live separately from the Respondent.
Respondent acquiesced to her request and he moved out of their house. After
their de facto separation, the relationship of the couple did not improve.
The continuing failure and refusal of Respondent to perform his
obligations to his family, both as spouse to Petitioner and father to their child,
compelled the Petitioner to file the present Petition for the Declaration of Nullity
of her marriage with the Respondent on grounds of the latter's psychological
incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the
Family Code.

B. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal
manifestation of openness from Respondent, Petitioner is open to the possibility of
amicably settling this dispute
 C. ADMITTED FACTS
All allegations indicated in the pleadings submitted by the Petitioner.

D. PROPOSED STIPULATIONS OF FACTS

Petitioner proposes to admit the genuineness and due execution of the following
documents:

1. Marriage Certificate of Ma. Elena Fernandez and Valerio E. Kalaw;

2. Birth Certificate of Valerie Kalaw.

Petitioner also proposes to stipulate on the following facts:

1. That the parties were legally married on December 15, 2008 in San Antonio
 de Padua Parish in Parañaque City;
2. That out of their marriage, a child named Valerie Kalaw was born on August
15, 2009;
3. That the parties are separated-in-fact for more than three years;
4. That their common child is in the custody of Petitioner;
5. That the psychiatrists of the Petitioner and the Respondent are expert in
their field.

E. PROPOSED ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

1. Whether or not Respondent may be held liable to give support pendent

lite;
2. Whether or not Respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential requisites of marriage.

F. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Petitioner intends to present two witnesses, to wit:

1. Ma. Elena Fernandez, the Petitioner herself, to testify on her
relationship and interaction with Respondent before and during their
marriage
2. Marry Kho Te, a close and long-time friend of the parties since college,
who will testify on the relationship of the spouses as husband and wife;
3. Dr. Estrella T. Tiongson-Magno, a clinical psychologist, who will
testify on the psychological report done on the respondent, particularly as
to respondent’s pattern of behavior

G. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Petitioner requests the marking as exhibits of the following documents:

1. Marriage Certificate of Ma. Elena Fernandez and Valerio E. Kalaw.

(Exhibit “A”)
2. Birth Certificate of Valerie Kalaw. (Exhibit “B”)
3. Psychological Report prepared by clinical psychologist Dr. Estrella T.
Tiongson Magno(Exhibit “C”)
4. Official receipt in payment of school tuition fee (Exhibit “D”)
5. Official receipt in payment of piano tutorials (Exhibit “E”)
6. Official receipt for purchase of children's school supplies (Exhibits “F-
J”)
 H. AVAILMENT OF MODES OF DISCOVERY
Petitioner reserves the right to avail of the modes of discovery in addition to the
aforementioned request for stipulation.

I. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

The Petitioner primarily grounds her claims on the following provisions of the
Family Code, to wit:
Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended by Executive Order 227, states:
“A marriage contracted by any party who at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.”

In relation to said provision, Article 68 of the same Code provides:

“'The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect
and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.”

Further, Article 220 of the same Code also provides:

“The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the respect to
their unemancipated children or wards the following rights and duties:
(1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right
precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with
their means;
(2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and
understanding;
(3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty,
integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in
civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;
(4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise
their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad
company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health,
studies and morals;
(5) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
(6) To demand from them respect and obedience;
(7) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and
(8) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and
guardians.

As held in the 2015 case of Kalaw v. Fernandez:

“Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36
of the Family Code refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even
prior to the celebration of the marriage that is permanent as to deprive the party of
the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she
was about to assume.” 

In the 2010 case of Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes-Reyes, the court held that

respondent's pattern of behavior, i.e. his (1) sporadic financial support; (2) extra-
marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid money
obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family
businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa, manifests a psychological
incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations.

J. RESERVATION
Petitioner respectfully reserves the right to present additional oral and
documentary evidence as may become necessary in the course of the trial.

L. SPECIFIC TRIAL DATES

It is respectfully requested that the trial dates be set during the pre-trial conference
to the dates most convenient to this Honorable Court and to all the parties.

Respectfully submitted.
December 8, 2019, Paranaque City.

ATTY. ALEX R. REYES

Counsel for Petitioner

Court and PAO Building
 Gomez Street, Muntinlupa City
PTR No. 012345; 01/15/19; Muntinlupa City
IBP Lifetime No.551986; 01-25-01; Pasig City
Roll of Attorney’s No. 45678
MCLE Compliance No. 4-00010101
Tel. (fax) no. (045) 982-0871
Email: alex_reyes@yahoo.com

Copy Furnished:

Office Of The Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City

Atty. Nicole Cruz

Counsel for the Respondent
CCC Law Offices
Biñan City|

EXPLANATION
            Copies of the foregoing Brief were served to respondent’s counsel through
registered special mail considering the distance between the address of defendant’s
counsel and the undersigned counsel. Moreover, the office of the undersigned has
no personnel to effect personal service to the respondents.

ALEX R. REYES