1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

LINDA MANANSALA- CRUZ,

Petitioner,
Civil Case No.
For: Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of Marriage
-versusCESAR CRUZ,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------x
PETITIONERS MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW petitioner, through counsel, to the Honorable Court, most
respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:
THE CASE
On December 16, 2015, Petitioner Linda- Manansala Cruz filed a Petition
for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code against Cesar Cruz on account of the latters psychological incapacity
amounting to his failure to comply with the essential marital obligations embodied
in Articles 68-71 of the Family Code.
On January 4, 2016, a copy of the summons with attached Petition and its
annexes were served to the nephew of Cesar Cruz who was fifteen (15) years old.
He argues in his Answer that his nephew was not of suitable age and discretion to
immediately bring the summons to his attention. As a result of which, he argued
that the court had not acquired jurisdiction over him, making the Petition
susceptible to outright dismissal. However, this defense was not appreciated by the
Court.
On January 10, 2016, the Honorable Court issued an order directing
Prosecutor Michael Ramos to conduct an investigation to determine as to whether
or not collusion exists between the parties and to submit a written report thereon
within 30 days from receipt thereof.
On January 18, 2016, Prosecutor Ramos submitted the report, stating that he
conducted an investigation as directed and he did not find any evidence of
collusion between the parties.

On January 28, 2016 the RTC rendered a Decision declaring the marriage
between petitioner and Cesar Cruz as null and void ab initio, which reads:
With the preponderant evidence presented by the petitioner,
the court finds that respondent totally failed in his commitments
and obligations as a husband. Respondents emotional immaturity
and irresponsibility is grave and he has no showing of
improvement. He failed likewise to have sexual intercourse with
the wife because it is a result of the unconscious guilt felling of
having sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between
the mother and the wife and therefore sex relationship will not be
satisfactory as expected.
The respondent is suffering from dependent personality
disorder and therefore cannot make his own decision and
cannot carry on his responsibilities as a husband. The marital
obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect, support
was not fulfilled by the respondent.
Considering the totality of evidence of the petitioner
clearly show that respondent failed to comply with his marital
obligations.
Thus the marriage between petitioner and respondent
should be declared null and void on the account of respondents
severe and incurable psychological incapacity.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the marriage between
Linda Manasala- Cruz and Cesar Cruz is hereby declared void ab
initio pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

However, when Cesar Cruz appealed the decision of the Regional Trial
Court before the Court of Appeals, the appellate court in its decision dated January
31, 2016 reversed the RTC ruling and decided:
The evidence on record failed to demonstrate that respondents
alleged irresponsibility and over-dependence on his mother is
symptomatic of psychological incapacity as above explained.
Also worthy of note is petitioner-appellees failure to prove that
respondents supposed psychological malady existed even before the
marriage. Records however show that the parties were living in harmony
in the first few years of their marriage and were living on their own in a
rented apartment. That respondent often times asks his mother for
financial support may be brought about by his feeling of embarrassment
that he cannot contribute at all to the family coffers, considering that it
was his wife who is working for the family. Petitioner-appellee likewise
stated that respondent does not like to have a child on the pretense that
respondent is not yet ready to have one. However this is not at all a
manifestation of irresponsibility. On the contrary, respondent has shown
that he has a full grasp of reality and completely understands the
implication of having a child especially that he is unemployed.

The behavior displayed by respondent was caused only by his

youth and emotional immaturity which by themselves, do not constitute
psychological incapacity. As held by the Supreme Court:
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty,
refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations, it is
essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some
psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage. (Navarro, Jr. vs. Cecilio-Navarro, G.R. No. 162049, April 13,
2007).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the ruling of the Regional
Trial Court dated January 28, 2016 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The marriage between Linda Manasala-Cruz and Cesar Cruz is
valid.

Hence, petitioner appeals the decision of the appellate court.

THE FACTS
Linda Manansala- Cruz and Cesar Cruz met on September 23, 2006 at
Tondo, Manila. After two months, Cesar asked Linda to marry him and the latter
accepted the proposal. Their wedding happened on January 25, 2007 before the
sala of Judge Mario Socorro of Manila, copy of their marriage certificate is
attached in the Petition as Annex A.
After their wedding, as their money was not enough to rent a room, the
couple stayed in the house of Cesars mother. At that time, it was only Linda who
was working because Cesar was just then laid off by his employer. Thus, Linda
was then the sole provider for their needs(This statement honestly
stands out, good point to emphasize the situation of
the marriage). . Worse, despite repeated requests from Linda and his mother
to find a job, Cesar refused to do so and insisted that his mothers financial support
is enough to make them live. Linda, not giving up on his husband, even bought
newspapers for possible hiring opportunities and corporate attires to be worn for
interviews. However, despite these efforts, Cesar continued to be jobless and
deliberately depended on her mother. When they decided to rent a room near the
house of Cesars mother, it was still the same who pays for the rent.
After some time, Cesar made it appear that he found a job and regularly goes
to work. But the truth is, he was staying in his mothers house in the supposed
office hours. Cesar admits that he lied and argued that the reason why he did the
same was to get away from the nagging of Linda.
There are also instances where Cesar will chose to spend time with his
barkada over his wife( I think Cesar will chose should be rephrase to Cesar
choose to spend). When Lindas grandmother died, she asked Cesar to accompany
him but Cesar told her that he was not feeling well. But, on the same day, he went
to his barkada and drink alcohol.

Aside from the foregoing, every time Cesar gets drank, he abuses Linda.
Several instances of abuse were slapping Linda in her face, pouring hot noodles
upon her and constant verbal abuse. Medical certificates were attached in the
Petition as Annexes B and B-1to justify the allegations.
Because of the circumstances, Cesar and Linda separated last June 2014.
Cesar returned to his mother after their separation.
Cesar and Linda did not have any child. Cesar believed that he was not yet
ready and it will be a big financial responsibility because of the expenses brought
by milk and diapers. In addition, because their sexual intimacy is unsatisfactory
due to Cesars refusal.
Cesar Cruz was then examined by Dr. Alexander Jose, a seasoned and
credible psychiatrist as an expert witness regarding Cesars psychological
incapacity. The result of the examination manifests that Cesar Cruz is suffering
from Dependent Personality Disorder.
The result of the medical examination proves that Cesar is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations enshrined in Article
68 of the Family Code. Hence, their marriage is void ab initio.
ISSUES
1. Whether the failure of Mr. Cesar Cruz to render support, his refusal to procreate,
his consistent dependence on her mother, and his unreasonable attachment to his
barkada amount to psychological incapacity.
2. Whether the incapacity of Cesar Cruz is grave, incurable and existing at the time of
the celebration of the marriage.
ARGUMENTS
I.

CESARS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL MARITAL

OBLIGATIONS AMOUNTS TO PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.
The essential marital obligations are enshrined in Article 68 of the
family Code which states:
The husband and the wife are obliged to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support.
A. FAILURE TO RENDER
HELP AND SUPPORT

MUTUAL

The facts mentioned above shows that since the beginning of their marriage,
Cesar did not bother helping and supporting his wife. Despite repeated requests

from his wife and from his own mother, Cesar deliberately refused. He never
intended to provide for his family. He even lied from his wife and made it appear
that he was working, when the truth is, he really is not.
In Tongol v. Tongol (G.R. No. 157610, October 19, 2007) it was held that:
Hence while a person may be truly very be efficient and mentally capable in
undertaking a particular profession in life, he or she can still be considered as a
completely irresponsible person vis--vis his or her married life if he or she spends
almost the whole day working and not minding his or her family. Conversely, if
the law renders a man or woman psychologically incapacitated because of too
much work that leads to clear absence of care for his/ her family, because at the
end of the day, it is still a failure to comply with your essential marital obligations,
then deliberate refusal to work also leads to the same end.
B. PROCREATION AS THE BASIC END
OF MARRIAGE
In Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals (266 SCRA 324), it was stated that:
Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to
procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children
through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage. Constant non-fulfillment
of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity of the wholeness of the
marriage.
The facts would show that Mr. Cesar Cruz, intends not to procreate
grounded on reasons that they were still young, babies will cost a lot of expenses
for diapers and milk, and those babies would make their nights sleepless. These
contentions by Mr. Cruz are indicators of psychological incapacity. The basic end
of marriage is to establish a conjugal and family life and procreate which in this
case, Cesar Cruz failed to comply.
C. INCIDENTS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE
The facts will reveal that instead of love and affection, it was physical abuse
that Mr. Cesar Cruz showed upon Linda. For unknown and unjustifiable reasons,
every time Cesar gets drank, he slaps Linda. Under marriage, partners are obliged
to observe mutual love and render respect. The incidents of abuse are clearly
contrary on how he should treat Linda. Therefore, this is again a failure on Cesar to
comply with the essential marital obligations.
D. CONSISTENT DEPENDENCE ON HIS
MOTHER
Mr. Cesar Cruzs consistent dependence upon her mother indicates
psychological incapacity. It was shown that instead of moving out from his
mothers house, Mr. Cruz continued to stay and depend upon her mother. In fact,
he impliedly tells Linda not to worry because the sustenance coming from her
mother will make them live. In addition, when Cesar accepted the offer to transfer
into another residence, it was still her mother that was paying for the rental

expenses. He was supposed to provide and support the family, yet he still depends
upon her mother. Considering that he is of so proper age and more, he is married.
Again, this indicates psychological incapacity.
E. UNREASONABLE ATTACHMENT TO
HIS BARKADA
The facts will also show that Mr. Cesar Cruz was so inclined with his
barkada. The time Cesar should have had spent with his family was spent with his
barkada. In fact, one incident will show that indeed it is true. When Linda asked
him to come to his grandmothers wake, he did not come instead told Linda that he
was not feeling well. But on that day, he went to his friend and drink.
II.

GRAVITY, INCURABILITY AND EXISTENCE OF THE INCAPACITY AT

THE TIME OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE MARRIAGE PROVEN BY
AN EXPERT WITNESS
Cesar Cruz then, upon request of his mother, voluntarily submitted himself
to a medical and clinical examination conducted by Dr. Alexander Jose, a seasoned
and credible psychiatrist. Copy of the result of the examination is likewise attached
in the Petition as Annex C.
A. DEPENDENCE
DISORDER

PERSONALITY

Dr. Jose concluded that Cesar Cruz is suffering from a dependence

personality disorder. According to Dr. Jose, Dependent Personality Disorder is
characterized by a pattern of dependent and submissive behavior. Such individuals
usually lack self-esteem and frequently belittle their capabilities; they fear criticism
and are easily hurt by others comments. At times they actually bring about
dominance by others through a quest for overprotection.
Furthermore, Dr. Jose affirmed that Cesar is afflicted with dependent
personality disorder, thus he cannot assume the essential marital obligations
of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and
support, for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice or
reassurance from his mother. Cesar allows his mother to make most of his
important decisions such as where to live. Cesar tends to agree with people even
when they believe they are wrong, has difficulty in starting projects or doing things
on his own, volunteer to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval
from other people, feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is often
preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.
As clearly shown in this case, Cesar continued to be dependent upon his
mother for support notwithstanding he now has the obligation to work and provide
for his wife. This indicates dependence personality disorder amounting to his
failure to comply with his essential marital obligations.

B. GRAVITY
The psychological capacity is grave. It appears that the behavior of Mr. Cruz
amounts to his disability to assume the above mentioned essential marital
obligations specifically, rendering support and procreate children. The facts will
reveal that they were already three years married, yet, Cesar never provided and
worked for his family. In addition, he continued to refuse to procreate, which in
fact is the end goal of marriage. Thus, these behaviors of Cesar are not mild
characteriological peculiarities but clear disabilities in complying the essential
marital obligations of marriage. ( Characteriological should be change to
characterological)
The clinical data will also prove that Cesars psychological incapacity was
characterized as grave enough as it disables him to comply with the essential
marital obligations.
C. INCURABILITY
Dr. Jose also stated that because the dependence disorder began as early as
Cesar was seven years old, it became so attached in his personality and thus,
beyond the means to be cured at this time. The incapacity to comply with the
essential marital obligations appears to be incurable and beyond the means of
Linda to address.
D. EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE
CELEBRATION OF THE MARRIAGE
The clinical examination explained that his psychological incapacity can be
traced to his childhood. According to the psychiatrist, upon his examination of the
background of Cesar Cruz, who was an only child, grew without a father figure.
Cesars testimony would prove that his father died on a car accident when he was
seven years old. Hence, he grew absent a parenting father and was raised by his
mother alone, sustaining his needs all the time. This was engrained in his system
which then became a dependence disorder.
The clinical examination will prove that the psychological incapacity of
Cesar to comply with his essential marital obligations already exists at the time of
the celebration of the marriage. It just manifested after the celebration when there
was already pressure to decide for Linda.
It was also clarified that Cesars refusal to procreate and engage in a sexual
intercourse with Linda can be linked to his relationship with his mother.
The seasoned psychiatrist emphasized that to sum up, Cesars grave
psychological incapacity-to fulfill their essential marital duties- is permanent and
incurable. His psychological incapacity was already present before the marriage
and is impermeable to treatment. ( I think that you have good ideas in your paper,

III.

THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN INVOKING

PSYCOLOGICAL INCAPACITY WERE COMPLIED WITH AND WERE
SUFFFICIENTLY PROVEN.
The Supreme Court ruled in Republic v. Molina (G.R. No. 108763 February
13, 1997) that in order to declare the marriage void ab initio, the following
guidelines must be observed:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage
belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor
of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against
its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our
Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and
unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article
on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It
decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from
dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and
marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and
the
family
and
emphasizes
the permanence,
inviolability and solidarity
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a)
medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint,
(c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity
must be psychological not physical. Although its manifestations
and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince
the court that the parties, or one of them, were mentally or
physically ill to such an extent that the person could not have
known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could
not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of
such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem
generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness and its incapacitating nature explained.
Expert evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist and
clinical psychologists.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of
the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that
the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's."
The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such
time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or
prior thereto.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be

absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not

necessarily absolutely against
everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption
of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to
marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.
Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of
children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her
own children as an essential obligation of marriage.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted
as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity
or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In
other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the
person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that
effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and
thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced
by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such noncomplied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition,
proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) 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.
x x x.

Hence, because of the compliance with the guidelines laid down by the court
specifically the required medical and clinical examination, sufficient testimony
of expert witness, gravity, incurability and existence at the time of marriage of
the psychological incapacity were satisfied. Clearly, there was failure on the part
of Cesar Cruz to comply with the essential marital obligations. Therefore, the
allegations being sufficiently proven, the marriage between petitioner Linda
Manansala- Cruz and Cesar Cruz may be declared void ab initio.
February 3, 2016.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that this Memorandum be NOTED and the marriage between
Linda Manansala- Cruz and Cesar Cruz be declared void ab initio due to
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

10

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise being prayed for.
EARVIN JOELET B. ARIAS
Suite 8-F, Empire Building II,
148 McArthur Highway, Brgy. San Jose,
City of Malolos, Bulacan
Attorneys Roll No. 2015800011
IBP No. 012295