Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Second Judicial Region
Branch 24
Echague, Isabela

EVANGELINE V. MATEO,
Petitioner,

- versus - Civil Case No. 24-0724

For: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage
BENJAMIN V. MATEO,
Respondent.
x-----------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court most

respectfully submits this memorandum:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This treats of a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by petitioner

Evangeline V. Mateo against her husband, respondent Benjamin V. Mateo;

2. This petition for declaration of nullity of marriage was filed on June 19, 2008;

3. That on June 23, 2008, petitioner submitted to the court a report of Compliance,
attached thereto an affidavit of service as proof that a copy of the Petition was
served on the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor;

4. The Honorable Court issued Summons to the respondent requiring him to file his
Answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof;

5. Sheriff IV Ronito E. Tagle of the Regional Trial Court of Olangapo City served a
copy of the Return of Service of Summons , stating that on July 1, 2008, he caused
the service of summons together with a copy of the petition upon respondent
Benjamin V. Mateo who signed to acknowledge receipt thereof;

6. On September 3, 2008, petitioner filed a Motion to issue an order directing public

prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties dated;

1
7. The Court issued an Order dated December 22, 2008 directing Prosecutor
Roderick Cruz to conduct the investigation;

8. Prosecutor Roderick Cruz submitted the Investigation Report dated 9 July 2009
stating that there is no collusion between the parties in the present case;

9. The Court issued an Order setting the Pre-trial conference;

10. Petitioner filed her Pre-trial Brief on December 14, 2009;

11. The Court issued its Pre –Trial Order dated 19 January 2010;

12. On February 02, 2010, Petitioner was presented as the first witness;

13. The testimony of the petitioner was offered to prove:

a)that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential
marital obligations to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual
help and support;

b)that respondent is likewise psychologically incapacitated to comply with his

duties and obligations as a parent to his children;

14. The testimony of the petitioner on further cross and re-direct examination was
completed on November 23, 2010;

15. That on December 02, 2010, Christian V. Mateo, parties’ eldest child, was
presented as a witness to prove:
a)that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential
marital obligations to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual
help and support;

b) that respondent is likewise psychologically incapacitated to comply with his

duties and obligations as a parent to his children;

16. That on the same date, Prosecutor Roderick Cruz cross-examined witness Christian
V. Mateo;

2
17. That on December 14, 2010, the third and last witness in the person of Dr. Delia G.
Garcia, a Clinical Psychologist and Psychology Professor who has been an expert
witness on various annulment cases, was presented as an expert witness to prove that:
a) she is a specialist on matters relating to psychological disorders;
(b) respondent, at the time of the celebration of the marriage, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage as he is
suffering from a severe psychological disorder and that such disorder is incurable
and grave enough to bring about the disability of the respondent to assume his
essential marital obligations;

18. That on the same date, Prosecutor Roderick Cruz cross-examined Dr. Delia Garcia
and after the testimony of Dr. Delia Garcia was completed, petitioner formally
offered her documentary evidence consisting of the following:
(a) Exhibit “A” – Certificate of Marriage to prove that petitioner and respondent
contracted their marriage on 09 May 1985 at Santiago City;
(b) Exhibit “B” and “C”– Certificates of Live Birth of Christian V. Mateo and
Benjamin V. Mateo Jr., respectively, to prove that out of the parties’ marriage,
two children were born;
(c) Exhibit “D” – A certified true copy of TCT no. T-292317 to prove that the
parties acquired a real property during their marriage;
(d) Exhibit “E” – Psychological Report dated June 12, 2008 to prove that
respondent is suffering from a psychological disorder which was already
present at the time of the celebration of the marriage and that said disorder is
severe and incurable;
(e) Exhibit “F” – Letter addressed to respondent Benjamin V. Mateo dated June 10,
2008 by Dr. Delia Garcia, inviting him for psychological assessment in view of
the present petition;

19. The Trial Prosecutor offered no objection to the admission of all the above Exhibits.
The Court ruled to admit all the above Exhibits as part of the testimony of the
petitioner and her witnesses and set the case for the State’s presentation of evidence
on 21 December 2010;

20. That the witnesses of the trial prosecutor failed to appear despite due notice, hence
the prosecutor moved that the present case be submitted for decision on the basis of
the evidence presented;

21. That petitioner is submitting the instant case for decision upon the submission of
this Memorandum.

3
 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

22. The parties hereto got married on May 9, 1985 at Santiago City solemnized by
Rev. Fr. Hermogenes Ranche, Parish Rector of Iglesia Filipina Independiente as
shown in their Certificate of Marriage with Registry No. 2002-989 marked as
Exhibit “A”;

23. Out of the parties’ marriage, two children were born namely: Christian V. Mateo
who was born on November 29, 1985 and Benjamin V. Mateo Jr. who was born on
November 14, 1990. Their Certificates of Live Birth were marked as Exhibits “B”
and “C” respectively;

24. During their marriage, they acquired a real property described in Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) no. T-292317 wherein their conjugal dwelling was built. The said
TCT was marked as Exhibit “D”;

25. Respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital

obligations to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support;

26. Likewise, respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his duties

and obligations to be a caring and responsible parent to his children;

27. Respondent’s utter act of irresponsibility, immaturity, uncaringness and sexual

infidelity are manifestations of a psychological disorder which made him unable to
discharge the essential obligations of marriage;

28. Respondent is found to be suffering from a severe psychological disorder called

Mixed Personality Disorder;

29. That the foregoing psychological incapacity has been medically and
psychologically identified by Dr. Delia Garcia, a clinical psychologist and who has
been an expert witness on various annulment cases;

30. That such psychological incapacity of the respondent is already present at the time
of the celebration of the marriage and such is so grave and that it is incurable;

III. ISSUES

4
 A. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER’S MARRIAGE
WITH RESPONDENT SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL
AND VOID PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY
CODE.

B. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS INCAPACITATED

TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL MARITAL
OBLIGATIONS.

C. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT’S

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS CHARACTERIZED
BY: GRAVITY, JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE AND
INCURABILITY.

IV.ARGUMENTS
A. THE SUBJECT MARRIAGE SHOULD BE DECLARED
NULL AND VOID PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE
FAMILY CODE

31. Article 36 of the Family Code provides that “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.”

32. Article 68 of the Family Code provides that “the husband and wife are obliged to
live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support.” Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the Code likewise enumerate the rights,
duties and liabilities of parents relative to their parental authority over their
children. Failure to comply with these rights, duties and obligations is a good
indicator of psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital
obligation;1 (Emphasis supplied)

33. The subject marriage is void under Article 36 of the Family Code because the
respondent, at the time of the celebration of the marriage, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage;

1
Minutes of the Civil Law and Family Code committees held on October 14, 1983, page 3.

5
 A.1 RESPONDENT’S ACT OF UTTER
IRRESPONSIBILITY, IMMATURITY, UNCARINGNESS
AND SEXUAL INFIDELITY WERE UNDISPUTEDLY,
STRONGLY AND CREDIBLY ESTABLISHED.

34. Petitioner, in her testimony, genuinely and spontaneously established that:

(a). From the first day of her marriage with the respondent, the latter
completely depended on his parents respecting all their financial
needs;
(b). Respondent never had a job and never exerted any effort to look for one
during the cohabitation ;

(c). Respondent, while petitioner was out trying to make a living, spent his
daytime either gambling or just staying at home doing nothing
productive;

(d). Respondent was a drug user;

(e). Respondent was unreasonably attached to his friends or “barkada”as

every so often, whenever fetched by his friends, he would go out with
them to have a drinking spree until dawn;

(f). Respondent would date other women and was afflicted with sexually
transmissible disease;

(g). When petitioner gave birth to her second child through caesarian
section, respondent did not bother to visit her and their second child at
the hospital;

(h). When petitioner was recovering from the operation she just had, she
was forced to do the household chores because respondent did not help
her to do the same, causing her surgical wound to dehisce,
consequently, she was brought back to the hospital. Frustratingly,
respondent did not visit her at the hospital to check her health
conditions, worse, did not show any remorse on his part;

(i) Respondent would usually hurt his children physically when the latter
did something the former dislikes. When the children complain,
respondent punished them by kicking, slapping and shouting vulgar
words at them. Worse, respondent would give risky errands to his

6
 children such as directing them to get sachets of marijuana from a
certain person;

(j). While petitioner was working abroad, respondent did not comply with
his duties and obligations as a parent to his children:

j.1) Respondent, for no valid reason, did not attend his children’s
graduation rites;

j.2) Respondent at no time helped his children in the household

chores, instead he was served as if he were a king;

j.3). When the parties’ eldest child, Christian V. Mateo, underwent

appendectomy, respondent did not bother to visit him in the
hospital before and after the surgery;

j.4) Respondent with his friends, for a number of times, was seen
by his children having a “pot session” at the living room of their
house;

j.4) Respondent was seen by his children taking home several

women in their family house, worse, his children witnessed his act
of keeping a mistress in their house;

(k)While petitioner was working abroad, respondent, as usual, was not

working and just waiting for the money to be sent by the former;

35. Christian V. Mateo, the parties’ eldest child, in his testimony, naturally and
unpromptedly corroborated and confirmed petitioner’s testimony;

A.2 RESPONDENT’S ACT OF UTTER

IRRESPONSIBILITY, IMMATURITY, UNCARINGNESS
AND SEXUAL INFIDELITY ARE MANIFESTATIONS
OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER WHICH MADE HIM
COMPLETELY UNABLE TO DISCHARGE THE
ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE

36. The respondent was medically and psychologically identified by a clinical

psychologist, Dr. Delia Garcia, to be suffering from a psychological disorder called
Mixed Personality Disorder which is severe and incurable;

7
37. Dr. Delia Garcia, based on the interview with the petitioner and Benjamin V.
Mateo Jr., the parties’ youngest child, found the respondent to manifest the
character traits of an individual with Mixed Personality Disorder;

38. Respondent has met the criteria for which the diagnosis is based which are the
following:
(a) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours
by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

(b) Irritability and aggressiveness as indicated by repeated physical

abuses to his children.
(c) Consistent irresponsibility as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behaviour.

(d) Lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent or rationalizing

having hurt or mistreated others.

(e) Impulsivity in spending, substance abuse, gambling and sex.

(f) Chronic feelings of emptiness.

39. The Diagnosis part of the Psychological Report executed by Dr. Delia Garcia states
that: “The Respondent has Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified(Mixed
Personality Disorder) that started to manifest during his adolescent period up to
the present. It is incurable and grave enough to bring about the disability of the
respondent to assume his essential marital obligations. Therefore , he is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations.” 2(Emphasis
supplied)

40. Such incapacity is quite relevant to the respondent’s assumption of marital

obligations and such disordered personality completely unable respondent to
discharge the essential obligations of the marital state.

B. THE RESPONDENT’S PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS

CHARACTERIZED BY: GRAVITY, JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE AND
INCURABILITY

B.1 The root cause of respondent’s psychological disorder is identifiable.

2
Exhibit “E-1”.

8
41. Based on the Psychological Report3 and testimony of Dr. Delia Garcia, the root
cause of respondent’s psychological disorder was his childhood experiences.
Respondent, during his childhood days, was not given any duty and responsibility
in the house. His parents, more often than not, would give in to his whims. He grew
up spoiled, lazy, choosy with foods and clothes. He was not interested in school
work. After finishing high school, he stopped studying and from then on, he
completely depended on his parents as regards financial needs. He was spendthrift
to the extent that when he was without funds, he had the nerve to either sell his own
clothes or steal somebody’s money. His parents tolerated his wrongdoings and
made him feel that whatever wrong he would commit, his parents would always
take care of him as, among others, when he was involved in the sell and use of
prohibited drugs, his parents told him to stay with his elder sister in Santiago City to
escape from the eyes of Narcotic agents in Olangapo City;

B.2 Respondent was already suffering from a psychological disorder at the

time of the celebration of marriage.
(JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE)

42. Since the root cause of the respondent’s Mixed Personality Disorder was his
childhood experiences as earlier described, hence, said disorder was already
present at the time of the celebration of marriage.

43. The clinical psychologist, Dr. Delia Garcia, after psychological assessment,
concluded that respondent “has Mixed Personality Disorder that started to
manifest during his adoloscent period up to the present”4;

44. From the foregoing, clearly, respondent, even before the celebration of marriage,
was already suffering from Mixed Personality Disorder;

B.3 Respondent’s psychological incapacity is severe and incurable

45. From the first day of the parties’ married life until the last day of their cohabitation,
respondent’s act of utter irresponsibility, immaturity, uncaringness and sexual
infidelity persisted;

46. The clinical psychologist, Dr. Delia Garcia, after psychological assessment,
concluded that “respondent has Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified
3
Exhibit “E”.
4
Exhibit “E-1”

9
 (Mixed Personality Disorder) that is incurable and grave enough to bring about
the disability of the respondent to assume his essential marital obligations”. 5
(Emphasis supplied)

47. Clearly, the respondent was already suffering from a severe psychological disorder
at the time of the celebration of marriage and the disorder is incurable in regard to
the petitioner and likewise, the said disorder is grave enough to bring about the
disability of the respondent to assume his essential marital obligations to observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support and to be a
caring and responsible parent as well;

48. Article 36 of the Family Code states that “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”.

49. Article 68 of the Family Code provides that “the husband and wife are obliged to
live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support.” Article 70 of the Family Code states that spouses are jointly responsible
for the support of the family. Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the Code likewise
enumerate the rights, duties and liabilities of parents relative to their parental
authority over their children. Failure to comply with these rights, duties and
obligations is a good indicator of psychological incapacity to perform the
essential marital obligation;6 (Emphasis supplied)

50. In Dedel vs Court of Appeals7, the Supreme Court held that it must be shown that
the acts of sexual infidelity, abandonment, emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility are manifestations of a disordered personality which make
respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.

51. In the case at bar, it has been sufficiently established that the respondent’s act of
utter irresponsibility, immaturity, uncaringness and sexual infidelity are the physical
manifestations of respondent’s Mixed Personality Disorder which made him
completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage as embraced by
Articles 68, 70, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code of the Philippines;

5
Exhibit “E-1”.
6
Minutes of the Civil Law and Family Code committees held on October 14, 1983, page 3.
7
G.R. no. 151867, January 29, 2004.

10
52. In the case of Halili vs Halili and the Republic of the Philipppines 8, the Supreme
Court held that the court must consider as essential the expert opinion on the
psychological and mental disposition of the parties.

53. In the present case, the testimony of the expert witness, Dr. Delia Garcia, revealed
that respondent is suffering from a Mixed Personality Disorder which was already
existing at the time of the celebration of the parties’ marriage;

54. In conclusion, undeniably, the respondent, at the time of the celebration of his
marriage with the petitioner, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage to observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and render mutual help and support as embraced by Article 68 of the
Family Code and to be a caring and responsible parent as well as embraced by
Article 220, 221, and 225 of the Family Code;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court to render judgment:
1. Declaring as NULL AND VOID the marriage entered into by Petitioner with
Respondent on May 9, 1985;

2. Ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Santiago City and the National Statistics
Office to cancel from their respective Books of Marriages the aforesaid marriage
of Petitioner with Respondent.

3. Ordering the partition of the property acquired while they lived together in
accordance with Article 147 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Other reliefs, as may be deemed just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Santiago City for Echague, Isabela. February 4, 2011.

BRENDA R. LUNA
2nd floor, PG Bldg.
No. 74 Barrera St.,corner City Road,
Centro East, Santiago City
PTR. No. 0454786/01-20-10/Santiago City
IBP No.811008;01-09-10;Isabela
Roll No. 52828
MCLE Compliance No.III-0017302/06-29-10

8
Halili v Halili and the Republic of the Philippines. G.R. no. 165421. June 9, 2009.

11
Copy furnished:

Prosecutor RODERICK CRUZ

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Echague, Isabela

BENJAMIN V. MATEO
#20 Ibarra st. East Bajac-Bajac
Olangapo City

In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
respectfully manifested that service through registered mail of the foregoing MEMORANDUM
was resorted to by reason of limited personnel to effect personal service.

BRENDA R. LUNA

12