REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Regional Trial Court

Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66
Tanauan City, Batangas

FRANCIS SARIA REMBULAT,

Petitioner,

-versus- SPEC PRO Case No. 21-04-019

For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage

JULIE ANN DIALA REMBULAT,

Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION

DATED JULY 20 2022

COMES NOW the Petitioner, through the undersigned counsel

and unto this Honorable Court, in moving for the reconsideration of
the Decision dated 17 June 2022, most respectfully states:

TIMELINESS

1. That 8 August 2022, the Petitioner received the Decision

from the Honorable Court denying the instant petition for nullity of
marriage. Pursuant to Section 19 of the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, the Petitioner has fifteen (15)
days or until August 23, 2022, within which to file his Motion for
Reconsideration. As such, this pleading being filed today is filed on
time;

ARGUMENTS FOR THE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2. That on 17 June 2022 this Honorable Court rendered a

Decision denying the instant Petition, the dispositive portion of which
states that:

WHEREFORE the petition is DENIED. The

marriage of Francis Saria Rembulat and Julie Ann Diala
Rembulat subsists and remains valid.

SO ORDERED.

1
 Tanauan City, Batangas, July 17, 2022. 1”
(emphasis supplied);

3. That in denying the instant petition, the Honorable Court

stated that it failed to find sufficient evidence to nullify the marriage
of the Petitioner and Respondent;

4. That in its Decision, the Court declined to accept as

credible the assessment of the expert witness Dr. Revita as there is no
other evidence that establish the juridical antecedence, gravity and
incurability of Francis and Julie Ann’s alleged incapacity 2;

5. That with all due respect to the Honorable Court, the

Petitioner humbly pleads for the reconsideration of the above-stated
ruling, as it has sufficiently established the Psychological Incapacity
of the Respondent Julie Ann Diala Rembulat on the following
reasons;

a. That the testimony of the Expert Witness

sufficiently established the Psychological Incapacity
of the parties;

b. That Psychological Incapacity of the Respondent

Julie Ann Diala Rembulat to perform her marital
obligations is apparent regardless of her evaluation;

That the above-stated reasons will be discussed herein in toto;

DISCUSSION

That the testimony of the Expert

Witness sufficiently established the
Psychological Incapacity of the
parties

6. That in arguing for the reconsideration of the Honorable

Court’s decision, the Petitioner submits that the psychological
incapacity of both parties were sufficiently established, as the
juridical antecedence has been sufficiently established and the actions
of the parties reflecting the same has been similarly proven;

7. That admittedly the fact that the Respondent was not

personally examined by the expert witness of the Petitioner was
concurred upon by the Honorable Court and as such this leniency is

1
Page 11, Decision dated 17 June 2022.
2
Page 8, Ibid.

2
very much in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of
MARCOS v. MARCOS (G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000), to wit:

“Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring

the nullity of a marriage, may be established by the
totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement,
however, that the respondent should be examined by a
physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non
for such declaration.”

8. That however, contrary to the findings of the Honorable

Court, it is respectfully submitted that the Petition has met the
totality of evidence in finding that the parties are psychologically
incapacitated to comply with their marital obligations;

9. That the expert witness conducted a battery of tests and

examination of the Petitioner and derived information from him to
establish the psychological make-up of the Respondent;

10. That the Petitioner being the husband of the Respondent,

he can personally relay and establish their marital history as well as
the personal history of the Respondent. From this Dra. Revita was
able to construct her findings;

11. That in any case, the qualifications of Dra. Revita is

sufficiently established, and her 40 years of experience is evident:

“Q: How many times have you done psychological

evaluation and cases related to it you
appeared in Court, if any?

A: I have done more than ten thousand (10,000)

psychological evaluations of patients and
private clients. Xxx3

12. That from the tests she perfomremed, Dra. Revita

determined that the Petitioner is suffering from PERSONALITY
DISORDER, DEPENDENT TYPE while the Respondent is suffering
from PERSONALITY DISORDER, NARCISSISTIC TYPE;

13. That the participation of the Dra. Revita and her approach
in this case mirrors the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court
in Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. No. 196359. May 11, 2021), to wit:

“Applying Tortona here, we find that Dr. Garcia was

sufficiently qualified as an expert in psychiatry. She
possesses the special knowledge to practice her

3
Page 3, Judicial Affidavit of Dra. Revita (Exhibit “Q”)

3
 profession, holding degrees in medicine and special
education. She has been practicing her profession as a
physician psychiatrist since 1990, including working at
the Philippine Mental Health Association as a psychiatrist
for 11 years.

On the principles and methodology Dr. Garcia

applied in evaluating Rosanna and Mario, she conducted
a psychiatric clinical interview and mental status
examination of Rosanna. She likewise interviewed Ma.
Samantha and Jocelyn Genevieve, Rosanna's sister. The
psychiatric clinical interview and mental status
examination remain to be the principal techniques in
diagnosing psychiatric disorders. While ideally, the
person to be. diagnosed should be personally interviewed,
it is accepted practice in psychiatry to base a person's
psychiatric history on collateral information, or
information from sources aside from the person
evaluated. This is usually done if the patient is not
available, incapable, or otherwise refuses to cooperate, as
in this case.”

xxx

“Rosanna submits that even if solely based on collateral

information, expert opinion on a spouse's psychological
incapacity may be considered as competent evidence. An
expert "does not accept the information relayed bya party
about his/her spouse 'as is'." A psychological evaluation is
only made after a "verification process is conducted by the
psychologist/psychiatrist," assuring that the expert
opinion is reliable.” (underscoring ours);

14. That from the above-stated, it bears similarities on how

Dra. Revita conducted and concluded the examination of the
Petitioner and the Respondent;

15. That the collateral information is presented through the

corroborating witnesses Macaria Saria Rembulat and Annete Castillo
Guilas, who executed their respective Judicial Affidavits which
narrate the behavioral issues with regards to the marriage of the
parties;

16. That from their narrations they stated that the

Respondent has left the Petitioner decades ago and has shown acts of
unsolicited violence against him. Without justification the
Respondent left the Petitioner and went with another man;

4
 “Sagot: Opo dahil po ng malakas pa ako ay napunta
ako sa tinutuluyan nila at minsan ay tumigil
ako doon at doon ko nakikita na violente at
sobrang selosa ang asawa ng anak ko.4”

“Sagot: Opo at madalas po nanakit si Julie Ann at

Tinapon ang mga damit ni Francis palabas
ng bahay nilang inuupahan5”

17. That from the above-stated, the personality structure of

the Respondent can atleast be ascertained. She lacks empathy and
showed irresponsibility when she left the Petitioner without warning.
She does not provide love, support, dignity and respect to him;

18. That further, Dra Revita derived the following as the root
cause of her behavior:

“A: For the Respondent grew up with lenient discipline

from her parents and more so that she is the
youngest, she was tolerated of what she wants to
do. Being the favorite of her father who is known to
be a disciplinarian being a policeman, she was
pampered and lavished with whatever she likes.
Xxx.. she had expected the same treatment
she had from her husband and if not given,
here demanding ways prevail.”

19. That clearly her behavior was rooted from her upbringing.
Though no family member testified or will reasonably testify as to
how the Respondent was raised, her current actions against the
Petitioner would show that the above-assertions are not inaccurate;

20. That the participation of the Respondent or her friends

and family members from childhood is improbable due to the
emotional distance and the dire history between the parties and their
families. Furthermore, the presentation of witnesses to testify as to
the childhood and trauma from experiences suffered by the
Respondent would simply be too improbable, as it would logically
tantamount to self-sabotage on the part of the witness;

21. That the Petitioner with all humility prays for the above-
mentioned to be noted and considered as it establishes the marital
tragedy between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The patterns of
psychological incapacity can be drawn from the above-stated, and as

4
No. 7, Judicial Affidavit of Macaria Saria Rembulat (Exhibit “S”)
5
No. 8, Judicial Affidavit of Annette Castillo Guilas (Exhibit “T”)

5
held by the Supreme Court in the case of CAMACHO -REYES v.
REYES (G.R. No. 185286, August 18, 2010);

“In the instant case, respondent’s pattern of behavior

manifests an inability, nay, a psychological incapacity to
perform the essential marital obligations as shown by 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.” (underscoring ours);

22. That clearly the Respondent cannot fully comply with her
responsibilities with the Petitioner as her inherent narcissism
prevents her from doing so;

23. That further it is again stated that the Respondent has

abandoned the Petitioner while he was away from work. This is
unnatural behavior that shows the existence of irreconcilable
defenses between them. This abandonment happened early on their
marriage, showing that the union should not have taken place in the
first place;

24. That to deny the nullity of the Petitioner’s matrimony to

the Respondent would be tantamount to a grave injustice, as our laws
which seek to favor and protect marriage, would have no true
marriage to protect;

25. That thus, from the above-stated the Petitioner begs the
utmost candor of this Honorable Court to reconsider its Decision
ruling which was anchored on the above-stated arguments. The
Respondent has been sufficiently found to be suffering from
incapacity to perform her marital obligations, which has been the root
cause of the Petitioner’s current martial circumstance. Granted, the
Petitioner submits to the wisdom of the Honorable Court in this case,
but it pleads for its mercy too.

That Psychological Incapacity of

the Respondent Julie Ann Diala
Rembulat to perform her marital
obligations is apparent regardless
of her evaluation

26. That granted that there was no evaluation made on the

Respondent, it is submitted that she is psychologically incapacitated
to perform her marital obligations nonetheless;

6
 27. That the recent ruling of Andal it has stated by the
Supreme Court:

“In light of the foregoing, this Court now categorically

abandons the second Molina guideline. Psychological
incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a
personality disorder that must be proven through expert
opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or
enduring aspects of a person's personality, called
"personality structure," which manifests itself through
clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family.
The spouse's personality structure must make it
impossible for him or her to understand and,
more important, to comply with his or her
essential marital obligations.”

28. That it should be reiterated that from the facts, the

Petitioner absorbed the abuse rendered by the Respondent. It would
be safe to say that the Respondent is used to getting things go her
way, which in turn led to the collapse of the marriage;

29. That the witnesses for the Petitioner has established this
fact and has shown the behavior of the Respondent and her treatment
of her marital obligations;

30. That in any case it is apparent that the Respondent is no

longer with the Petitioner and has decidedly built a life away from
him. She has no intention of pursuing the marriage with the
Petitioner as it has been almost two decades since they have been
apart. Clearly, there is nothing left to sustain in their marital union,
as it has been long gone.

CONCLUSION

31. That on bended knees and with all due respect to the
Honorable Court, the Petitioner posits that the expert witness has
provided a sufficient picture of the Respondent’s mental psyche,
despite the absence of the Respondent’s participation;

32. That the personality structure of the Respondent has been

sufficiently established and it is fairly shown to cause harm to the
Petitioner and their marriage with each other;

33. That the Petitioner can only accomplish what he can in

order to paint a picture of his situation for the Honorable Court. He
understands that the burden of proof to show the nullity of the
marriage belongs to him, and failing the satisfaction of this burden,

7
any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity,
however, he would be constrained and trapped by his current
predicament;

34. That thus, the Petitioner begs for the reconsideration of

the Honorable Court, and avails of the recent rulings of the Supreme
Court which lays leniency on the hurdles of Petitions for Nullity of
Marriage as in this case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays of this

Honorable Court to RECONSIDER its Decision June 17, 2022 and
deem that the elements of psychological incapacity on the part of the
Petitioner and Respondent as sufficiently established under Article 36
of the Family Code, and to declare the marriage of the Petitioner and
the Respondent null and void.

Respectfully submitted.

Pakil, Laguna for Tanauan, Batangas, August 10, 2022.

ESGUERRA AND CAGAYAT LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Petitioner
Pauline Bldg., 50 Tavera St., Pakil, Laguna
Tel. No. (049) 557-0231/Cel. No. 0922-8700457
esguerra_lawoffice10@yahoo.com

PABLO M. ESGUERRA
Attorney’s Roll No. 36979
PTR No. 9889006/01-03-2022
IBP No. 177330/02-07-2022
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0014491

NICOLO JUSTIN P. CAGAYAT

Attorney’s Roll No. 71786
IBP No. 169203, issued 1-2-2022
PTR No. 9855774/Paete, Laguna/1-3-2022
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0003645

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE CLERK OF COURT

Family Court
Branch 66

8
Tanauan, Batangas

Office of the City Prosecutor

Tanauan, Batangas

GREETINGS!

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing Motion for reconsideration and

resolution of this Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

NICOLO JUSTIN P. CAGAYAT

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City

Office of the City Prosecutor

Tanauan, Batangas

EXPLANATION

Service by registered mail was availed of due to distance and

lack of office personnel to effect personal service.

NICOLO JUSTIN P. CAGAYAT