REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

4th Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court

Branch 14

City of San Fernando, Pampanga

HAILEY C. BIEBER

Petitioner,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 2022-11-05

FOR JUDICIAL
DECLARATION

OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE

UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF
FAMILY CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES

JUSTIN A. BIEBER,

Respondent.

x—————————————————————x

 
 
MEMORANDUM
 
          PETITIONER, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court most

respectfully submits the following as its memorandum:

 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 

          This instant petition was filed on January 9, 2019 by the petitioner for

the Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of

Psychological Incapacity of the respondent, which is the ground provided

for under Article 36 of the Family Code.

 
STATEMENT OF FACTS
 

          On May 5, 2014, the two got married when petitioner is just a
young lady of 22 years old during that time who works
under the Social Work Development of Municipality of
Bacolor. Petitioner graduated Bachelor of Science in Social
Works in Don Honorio Ventura State University. Respondent,
on the other hand, is a Site Engineer under in a construction
company.

The classic love affair between Mr. Justin and Mrs.

Hailey started when the latter was introduced to the
petitioner through her cousin. She and Justin were
schoolmates in same university. What started as a simple
acquaintance was followed by an intense courtship; Justin
was immediately attracted to her that soon enough he was
deeply engrossed with her. Justin would often bring Hailey
to and from in her place of work; he visited her in their
house almost on a daily basis. These adorable actuations of
Justin eventually led to a romantic affair between him and
the respondent. They after then decided that they will get
married because they have both found the “right one” for
them. Both families agreed that since Justin and Hailey are
gainfully employed, they should now tie the knot. Most
members of their respective families attended the marital
ceremony.
The first stages of their married life were full of
happiness and excitement. She and Justin lived with her
family after the wedding and her family was cordial towards
him. But as time passed, they eventually moved in to a new
house. It was a smooth sailing for the newly-weds at first.
But a gradual changed in what seemed to be a happy union
loomed in the horizon. Their marriage, however short-lived,
blessed them with two children.
 Then one faithful day came when Justin left her and
their two children. She later on found out that the reason
why he left was because of a woman named Martina. She
also found out that the said woman was the one her
husband was always talking over the phone. Justin and her
other woman met on the construction company. Martina was
hired and assigned under the same project as Justin. They
became acquaintances and friendly with one another, then
eventually, their affair started. After finding out the main
reason why her husband left her and their children, Hailey
suffered sleepless nights, anxiety, depression, mental
anguish, and kept asking herself what she did wrong to lose
her husband to some other woman. She kept on asking
herself what that woman have that she and their children
cannot give to her husband.

ISSUES
 

1.   Whether or not respondent was only able to prove marriage infidelity

and emotional immaturity and irresponsibility which cannot be equated

with psychological incapacity.

2.   Whether or not the petitioner was able to substantiate his claim that

respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital

obligation and that the respondent’s acts are not merely a “DIFFICULTY” if

not outright “REFUSAL” or “NEGLECT” to perform some marital duties; and

3.   Whether or not the instant case merely involves irreconcilable

differences and conflicting personalities.

 
DISCUSSION
 
I.       RESPONDENT IS NOT ONLY EMOTIONALLY IMMATURE AND

IRRESPONSIBLE BUT IS INCAPABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL

MARITAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE.
 
          Article 68 of the Family Code is very categorical on the rights and

obligations of husbands and wives as it succinctly puts:

          “Article 68 – The husband and the wife are obliged to live
together,    
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support.”  
 
         
          Clearly, respondent was not able to comply with it, further, not only

is respondent emotional immature and irresponsible but he is

psychological incapacitated (Histrionic Personality Disorder) disabling him

to comply with his marital obligations.

          “While the law provides that the husband and wife are obliged to live

together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Article 68, Family

Code), the sanction therefor is actually the “spontaneous mutual

affection between husband and wife” and not any legal mandate or

Court Order”. (Cuaderno vs. Cauderno, 120 Phils 1298)

          This “spontaneous and mutual affection between husband and

wife” could hardly be inferred if not impossible to realize when respondent

adamantly failed to support the needs of his wife and children and worse,

respondent had an adulterous relationship and is in fact now living with

another woman.

 
          These facts were sufficiently proven during presentation of the

testimonies of the witnesses for the petitioner and they are hereby quoted:

Atty. Castillo

          Q        How was your relationship with the respondent after your

wedding?

Witness:

A        He showed his true self to me. He always wanted his own way like

for example is he did not allow me to sleep in their room simply because I

commented on his way of eating.

Atty. Castillo

Q       What happened thereafter?

Witness:

A        My husband became cold to me. And when I try to communicate

with him and ask what is the problem, he would always shout at me at

every instant. There are times I would force to console respondent even if

clearly respondent was unreasonable.

Atty. Castillo

Q       What happened next?

 
Witness:

A        One time, he left the house for a couple of months without

communicating. In another occasion, he also humiliated me at an event

where both of our families are present. I always experienced that constant

humiliation and I never felt a day of peace from the respondent.

Atty. Castillo

Q       What happened next?

Witness:

A        I caught him cheating because I saw a text from a girl named

Martina and that they are already in an intimate relationship. In the

conversation as attached in my petition, there was an evidence showing

that the two are always meeting each other in an apartment.

Atty. Castillo

Q       After that incident, what happened with your relationship with the

respondent?

Witness:

A        After the incident, he just left our house and found out that he was

living with Martina and he impregnates the latter.

Atty. Castillo

 
Q       During your separation, what happened to the respondent?

Witness:

A        During the first year of separation, he and Martina had their first

child. A year after, they had another child.  But without the knowledge of

Martine he always show up in our home and acting like he was drunk. He is

always bothering me and my children.

          “Love is useless unless it is shared with one another.  Indeed, no

man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say “I could

not have cared less”.  This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled

self.  The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual

intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a

gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which

enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family

relations. (Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals, G.R. 119190, January 16,

1997)

 
II.         PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS
CLAIM THAT RESPONDENT WAS PSYCHOLOGICALLY
INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY WITH HIS MARITAL OBLIGATION
 
The inclusion in the Family Code of Psychological Incapacity had its

bearings in the Canon Law Code.  Thus Canon 1095, paragraph 3 reads:

 
"They are incapable of contracting marriage: who lack sufficient
use of reason; who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment
concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties which are to be
mutually given and accepted; who are not capable of assuming the
essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a psychic nature".
 
Psychological Incapacity is now accepted in civil law as ground for

civil marriage annulment.  Of course, it has already been for years favored

in the annulment of Catholic religion marriages.  (Dr. Gerardo Ty Veloso,

Questions and Answers on Psychological Incapacity as Ground for Marriage

Annulment under Article 36 of the Family Code, pp 13 – 25)

Relative to this, in the case of Republic vs Molina, (G.R. No. 108763,

February 13, 1997) the Court made this pronouncement:

 
“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”.
 

Apparently, it has been clearly proven by Dr. Angelita L.

Mercado-Acosta, when her testimony was given at the witness stand that

respondent is suffering from “Histrionic Personality Disorder”, a form of

Psychological Incapacity.  As such, respondent has been psychologically

incapable to fully understand, internalize or feel and actuate the real

essence of marriage before, during and after their wedding.

The adult-like body that respondent is simply not mentally

and emotionally to carry the necessary elements of marriage on her

shoulders, the pervasively confused adolescent in her held self centered

and inadequate making it very difficult for her to handle the responsibilities

and obligation of a matured married person.

 
 These manifestations of respondent’s pathological sense of

inconsiderateness, inadequacy, insecurity and dependency would have not

surfaced had she not entered the bond of marriage, for marriage is one

institution which required the adult in her to give up emotional hangovers

and positively sublimate her hostile feeling and insecurities all in the name

of a matured heterosexual relationship.

 
III.                       THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE
MERE IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES AND CONFLICTING
PERSONALITIES BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT BUT
RATHER, IT INVOLVES THE INABILITY OF THE RESPONDENT TO
COMPLY WITH HIS MARITAL OBLIGATIONS.
 
The lack of steadfast commitment to a responsible marriage, support

and love to her husband, despite petitioner’s effort, were glaring

manifestations of respondent’s insensitivity, inconsiderateness and

selfishness that make her incapable to comply with her marital obligations.

“It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and

private respondent.  That is – a shared feeling which between husband and

wife must be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy

but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way

process.  An expressive interest in each other’s feelings at a time it is

needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital

relationship.  Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting

adults who view the relationship with love “ amor gignit amorem”, respect,

sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its

value as a sublime social institution”.  (Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals,

G.R. 119130, January 16, 1997)

 
 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
 

City of San Fernando Pampanga. March 23, 2022.

 
PRAYER
 
 
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing

Memorandum be noted accordingly and after due hearing, Respondent be

declared psychological incapacitated to perform their essential marital

obligations, and consequently, declare Petitioner’s marriage to Respondent

null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Petitioner prays for such other and further reliefs just and equitable
under the premises.
 
City of San Fernando Pampanga. March 23, 2022.

CASTILLO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Petitioner
ATTY. SHAIN CASTILLO
2/F VitugParas Bldg.
Jose Abad Santos Ave.
City of San Fernando Pampanga