Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 58
Makati City

Mr. Leonilo Antonio, Petitioner

02000034CA

CIVIL CASE No.

-versus-

FOR: Declaration of nullity

of marriage

Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, Respondent

xx

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

Defendants, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully file
their Answer in response to the Complaint of the Plaintiffs and
interpose as well as their counterclaim against the latter, to wit:
ANSWER
1. The allegations in number 6.1 to 6.8, are denied by the
respondent and claimed that she performed her marital
obligations by attending to all the needs of her husband. She
asserted that there was no truth to the allegation that she
fabricated stories, told lies and invented personalities, the truth as
being follows:
1.1.The allegation in number 6.1 is denied by respondent and
claimed that she concealed her child by another man from
petitioner because she was afraid of losing her husband.
1.2.The allegation in number 6.2 is denied by respondent and
claimed that she told petitioner about Davids attempt to
rape and kill her because she surmised such intent from
Davids act of touching her back and ogling her from head
to foot.
1.3.The allegation in number 6.3 is denied by respondent and
claimed that she was actually a BS Banking and Finance
1

graduate and had been teaching psychology at the Pasig

Catholic School for two (2) years.
1.4.The allegation in number 6.4 is denied by respondent and
claimed that the she was a free-lance voice talent of Aris de
las Alas, an executive producer of Channel 9 and she had
done three (3) commercials with McCann Erickson for the
advertisement of Coca-cola, Johnson & Johnson, and
Traders Royal Bank. She told petitioner she was a
Blackgold recording artist although she was not under
contract with the company, yet she reported to the
Blackgold office after office hours.
1.5. The allegation in number 6.5 is denied by respondent and
claimed that she claimed that a luncheon show was indeed
held in her honor at the Philippine Village Hotel on 8
December 1979.
1.6. The allegation in number 6.6 is denied by respondent and
claimed that she vowed that the letters sent to petitioner
were not written by her and the writers thereof were not
fictitious. Bea Marquez Recto of the Recto political clan was
a resident of the United States while Babes Santos was
employed with Saniwares.
1.7. The allegation in number 6.7 is denied by respondent and
claimed that she belied the allegation that she spent lavishly
as she supported almost ten people from her monthly
budget of P7,000.00.
1.8. The allegation in number 6.8 is denied by respondent and
claimed that she admitted that she called up an officemate
of her husband but averred that she merely asked the latter
in a diplomatic matter if she was the one asking for
chocolates from petitioner, and not to monitor her husbands
whereabouts.
2. The respondent argued that apart from her non-disclosure of a
child prior to their marriage alleged on number 6.1, the other lies
attributed to her by petitioner were mostly hearsay and
unconvincing. She alleged that the totality of the evidence
presented on number 10 in the petition is not sufficient for a
finding of psychological incapacity on her part.
3. In addition, respondent presented Dr. Antonio Efren Reyes (Dr.
Reyes), a psychiatrist, to refute the allegations in number 9 anent
her psychological condition. Dr. Reyes testified that the series of
tests conducted by his assistant, together with the screening

procedures and the Comprehensive Psycho-Pathological Rating

Scale (CPRS)
4. Dr. Reyes concluded that respondent was not psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. He
postulated that regressive behavior, gross neuroticism, psychotic
tendencies, and poor control of impulses, which are signs that
might point to the presence of disabling trends, were not elicited
from respondent.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1. In the instant case of Aurelio v. Aurelio, the Molina guidelines
must therefore be complied with, one: that the root cause of the
psychological incapacity must be alleged in the complaint; that
such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of
the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage; and
that the non-complied marital obligation must be stated in the
petition.
2. Cases that dont fall squarely under theMolinaguidelines should
not be dismissed outright. A rigid interpretation ofMolinameans
that petitions must be strictly construed in favor of the validity of
marriage and any deviation from the guidelines, no matter how
reasonable, must lead to the dismissal of the petition.
3. In the instant case of Marcos v. Marcos, Article 36 of the Family
Code, is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the
marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest
themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a
party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady
so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the
duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to
assume.
4. First guideline under Molina provides that any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. Marriage is
protected under the Constitution and existing laws. In case of
DOUBT in petitions for nullity cases, the doubt must be resolved
in favor of the validity of marriage.
5. In the instant case of Siayngo vs. Siayngo, 441 SCRA 422
(2004), psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (1)
gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, (3) incurability.
6. In the instant case of Choa vs. Choa, 392 SCRA 641 (2002), a
mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting
personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.
7. In Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, G.R.No. 171042, 30 June
2008, The Supreme Court held that the Constitution sets out a
policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic
social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.
3

Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the State,

cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for the
declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the
nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.
8. In the instant case of Yambao v. Republic, G.R. No. 184063,
January 24, 2011, proving that a spouse failed to meet his or her
responsibility and duty as a married person is not enough; it is
essential that he or she must be shown to be incapable of doing
so due to some psychological illness.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, answering defendant
respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to render judgment as
follows: