REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 13
FAMILY COURT
QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA

MELANIE ILACAS LAGAZO

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. B-QZN-18-00125-QZ
-Versus-

ALBERT RAGUINGAN MANUEL “Annulment of Marriage

Accused. Under Article 45 of the Family
Code.”
x-------------------------------------------------x

PETITION

            PETITIONER, Eleanor T. Guillen, by counsel, respectfully states:

1.       Petitioner is of legal age, born on February 12, 1985, and a resident of Ilocos
Norte, but is currently residing at Quezon City where summons may be
served for the instant case.
2.       The respondent is of legal age, born on January 10, 1980, and a resident of
Manila, where he may be served with summons for the instant case.
3.      Petitioner and respondent first met sometime in 2010.

4.    The two decided to get married on August 15, 2011 at Salugan Currimao,
Ilocos Norte;

5. They have 1 child namely: THANIEL LAGAZO MANUEL, born on

November 01, 2012;

5. Aside from acting immature and irresponsible, he also has no capability of

financial support, that’s why the petitioner decided to file for an annulment.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

marriage of the parties be annulled in accordance with Article 45(1) of the
Family Code.
            Petitioner also prays for other reliefs as may be deemed just and
equitable in the premises.
           

MA. CAROLINA T. LEGARDA

Counsel for Petitioner
412 Gemini Street, Annex 45
Commonwealth, Quezon City
PTR No. 6346588, 01-25-18, Manila
IBP No. 737133, 01-10-18, Manila
Attorney’s Roll No. 31018
MCLE No.: II-00130
 VERIFICATIONAND CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM
SHOPPING
I, MELANIE L. MANUEL, of legal age, residing at Quezon City, after having
sworn to by law hereby depose and state under oath that:
1. I have ceased the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
2. The allegations contained herein are true and correct of my own knowledge;
3. I have not commenced any other action or proceedings involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency; to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or
any other tribunal or agency; and that, if I should learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or different Division thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. I
undertake to promptly inform this Honorable Court within five (5) days
therefrom.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto signed this Verification this 30th day of May
2018, in Quezon City, Philippines.

MELANIE ILACAS LAGAZO-MANUEL

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 30th day of May 2018 at

Quezon City affiant exhibiting to me her Community Tax Certificate No.
11986199 issued on 28 May 2018 in Quezon City.

Doc. No. 30
Page No. 5
Book No. 1
Series of 2018
 EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL
[Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court]

PETITIONER, by counsel, submits that the foregoing Petition is being

served to the adverse party by registered mail due to lack of time and owing to
heavy workload of the liaison officer of the undersigned lawyer.

MA. CAROLINA T. LEGARDA

Copy Furnished:

CREDO NUBLA FRANCISCO AND JOSE

Counsel for Respondent
CVCLAW Center 11th Avenue cor. 39th Street Bonifacio Triangle,
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City, Metro Manila
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 13
FAMILY COURT
QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA

MELANIE ILACAS LAGAZO

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. B-QZN-18-00125-QZ
-Versus-

ALBERT RAGUINGAN MANUEL “Annulment of Marriage

Accused. Under Article 45 of the Family
Code.”
x-------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

THIS IS A VERIFIED PETITION FOR Annulment of Marriage filed by

petitioner Melanie I. Lagazo, respondent Albert R. Manuel, due to the
psychological problem of the latter.

Respondent was served with summons but despite the lapse of time
within which to file his answer, he failed to do so, upon motion, the Court
ordered the Office of the City Prosecutor to conduct an investigation in this
case to determine the presence of collusion between the parties in the filing on
this case. Prosecutor Oliver S. Garcia filed a report dated October 09, 2019
finding no collusion existing between the parties in the filing of this case.

During the Pre-trial on March 25, 2020, petitioner appeared together

with her counsel, Respondent failed to appear despite notice. The State was
represented by the Office, was deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General
to appear for and its behalf. Petitioner presented and marked her evidence
(Exhibits A to G). Thereafter, the parties entered into the following
stipulations:
 1. The spouses were married on August 15, 2011 at Salugan Currimao,
Ilocos Norte;

2. They did not acquire any property conjugal in nature;

3. They have one child;

4. The spouses are now living separately; and

5. The respondent did not file any answer.

Article 68 of the Family Code also provides the essential obligations and
responsibilities of a Spouse, thus:

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

Ms. Abinal also administered psychological test on petitioner that

revealed that petitioner is “ a person who has a strong sense of duty and the
ability to see what needs to be done in any situations sensually allows her to
overcome her worries, be in marital, she is quiet, supportive and a caring
person. When she finds that one needs emotional support, she puts forth effort
to meet the needs of people she loves. She is dependable and would follow
through things she knows are important. She is named as to faithful, loyal,
traditional and family oriented. She also, is the type who would try hard in
making her family running smoothly, laws and regulations for her are sued
and have to be followed, this is because she has a strongly dealt internal work
of duty, In general Ms. Lagazo’s personality profile is overwhelming with that
of a normal functioning person “ (Est. 1-8). However Ms. Abinal found a
different signs on the respondent. Consider her psychology and Diagnostic
Formulations on the marital relationship and considering personalities of the
respondent.

“Ms. Lagazo’s personality profile and marital history does not manifest
any signs of psychological abnormality, she has the capacity to face realities of
life and deal with difficulties coordinately and constructively. She is bound to
be free of tension and anxieties that could happen to be decision making
ability to be productive. She has the capacity to take on her responsibilities as
a married woman.

Mr. Manuel, on the other hand, manifests the following clinical

symptoms;
*Has an inflated sense of self importance
*Has a sense of entitlement i.e. unreasonable expectations of very
positive, treatment or automatic compliance with his expectations
*Takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends.
*Lacks empathy, he is unwilling to un identify with the feelings
and needs of others
*Shows arrogant or domineering behaviors or attitudes.

Mr. Manuel manifested symptoms are already present even

before the time he contract marriage. These symptoms are consistent
with the clinical picture of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. People
with such disorder often have a grandiose view of themselves, a need for
admiration and lack of empathy that begins by early adulthood and is
present in various situations. (Par.III of Exh. 1-5)

This finally led Ms. Abinal to submit her evaluation and

recommendation, stating:

“Overall analysis of the data gathered show that Ms. Lagazo is

functional to perform her marital obligations. Mr. Manuel, on the other hand
is found to have a narcissistic personality disorder which renders him
psychologically incapacitated to perform his obligations in the marital
context. Personality disorder are fixed pattern of behavior which affect many
personal and social institutions. They cause distress or impair personal
functioning. Symptoms are grave, serious and last a long time.

Ms. Emely Abinal , a psychologist whose qualification as an expert

witness were admitted by the parties, conducted the necessary clinical
interviews and psychological test on the petitioner the results of which were
reduced into writing (Exh. I). from the results of the psychological test and the
clinical interviews, Ms. Abinal found the respondent to be psychologically
incapacitated to discharge his marital roles and responsibilities.

Respondent was given a chance to present his case but despite the
notices sent to him he failed to appear in Court. He also did not file any
answer. Upon motion, respondent was deemed to have waived the
presentation of his evidence. City pros. Oliver Garcia manifested that the
State has no controvert evidence to present. Upon motion, the case was
deemed submitted for decision Copy of the Order was furnished the Office of
the Solicitor General which has not filed any Certification as to its stand in
this case in view of Resolution No. A.M. 02-11-11-SC issued by the Supreme
Court.

Petitioner seeks the declaration of the annulment of her marriage

with the respondent due to latter’s psychological incapability under Article 36
of the Family Code of the Philippines which 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.

The Family Code did not enumerate specific cases of the psychological
incapacity as it might limit the application of this provision. Hence, it left to
the Court trying the case to determine the same on a case to case basis.
However, in the case of R.P. vs. C.A. et.al, 268 SCRA 198, the Supreme Court
laid down the guidelines for the interpretation and application of Art.36 of the
Family Code and these are.

1. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically

or clinically identified (alleged in the complaint (c) sufficiently
proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision;

2. The incapacity must be proven to be existing “at the time of the

celebration of marriage”;

3. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically

permanent or incurable;

4. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage;

5 The essential marital obligations must be done embraced by the

Article 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and
wife as well as Article 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
parents and their children and;

6 The Trial Court must order the Prosecuting Attorney or Fiscal and
the Solicitor General to appear as them for the state.
 In view thereof, the undersigned believes that the continuance of the
marital relationship is impossible due to Mr. Manuel’s psychological problem
to perform his marital obligations. It is therefore recommended end that the
petition for annulment of marriage be given, favorable consideration by
Honorable n Court” (par.IV Exh.1-6)

The court agrees with the findings that the respondent is suffering from
a Narcissistic Personality Disorder which duly incapacitated him to discharge
his marital role. Respondent’s personality affliction has traces in his early
childhood. Consider what he went through in his growing up years. Also
found that respondent’s personality aberration is already innate in his person
hence, already considered as permanent. It is likewise severe as it caused
chaos and distress in the marriage which led to their separation.

Respondent failed to comply with the provision of Art.68 of the Family

Code which mandates spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect
and fidelity and to render mutual help and support. The spouses here have
not observed and live the true meaning of love and marriage. They have been
living separately for some time now. They now seem like strangers to each
other. It is to their best interest that their marital bond be severed as there is
no marriage obtaining in this case. If at all, it is only a sham marriage which
exists only on paper.

Petitioner’s evidence further discloses that the parties did not acquire
any substantial conjugal properties.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the marriage between

petitioner Melanie I. Lagazo and respondent Albert R. Manuel
solemnized on August 15, 2011 at Salugan Currimao, Ilocos Norte,
Philippines ANNULED.

After the finality of this decision, let a Decree of Annulment of Marriage

issue in this case.
SO ORDERED:

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

September 16, 2021

(Seal of the Regional Trial Court)

_____LILY ANN M. PADAEN_____

Presiding Judge

_______CELESTINA ROTA______
Clerk II
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 13
FAMILY COURT
QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA

MELANIE ILACAS LAGAZO

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. B-QZN-18-00125-QZ
-Versus-

ALBERT RAGUINGAN MANUEL “Annulment of Marriage

Accused. Under Article 45 of the Family
Code.”
x-------------------------------------------------x

ORDER OF THE FINALITY OF JUDGMENT

This is to certify that on September 16, 2021, a decision was rendered by this
Honorable Court in the above-entitled case, this dispositive part of which read
as follows:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED

1. Declaring the marriage conducted by the parties on 15 th day of

August, year 2011 ANNULED with all the effect therein as
provided;

2. Ordering the Salugan Currimao Ilocos Norte Civil Registry and the
Philippine Statistics Authority to CANCEL marriage contracted by
the parties from the books of marriage and to instead record this
decision therein in accordance with law
SO ORDERED:

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

October 04, 2021

(Seal of the Regional Trial Court)

_____LILY ANN M. PADAEN_____

Presiding Judge

_______CELESTINA ROTA______
Clerk II
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 13
FAMILY COURT
QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA

MELANIE ILACAS LAGAZO

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. B-QZN-18-00125-QZ
-Versus-

ALBERT RAGUINGAN MANUEL “Annulment of Marriage

Accused. Under Article 45 of the Family
Code.”
x-------------------------------------------------x

DECREE OF ANNULMENT

This cause, which has been regularly docketed, matured and set for
hearing as to the Petitioner, came on this day upon proof of proper and legal
service of process upon the Respondent, upon the one tonus testimony of
witness on behalf of the Petitioner, regularly taken after proper and legal
notice and filed in accordance with law.

Upon consideration whereof the court finds from the evidences,

independent of any admission of parties, Pleadings or otherwise, the following
facts:

A. The parties were married on 15TH day of August, 2011 at Salugan

Currimao, Ilocos Norte;

B. Petitioner (or Respondent –is only true for the Respondent) is an

actual resident and domiciliary of the Republic of the Philippines for
at least six months immediately before bringing this suit.
SO ORDERED:

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

November 12, 2021

(Seal of the Regional Trial Court)

_____LILY ANN M. PADAEN_____

Presiding Judge

_______CELESTINA ROTA______
Clerk II