Anna Marie B.

Dayanghirang
2016-80065

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Region
Manila City
Branch 4

Linda Manansala Cruz,

Petitioner,
CIVIL CASE No. 54321
-versus-

FOR: Declaration of Absolute

Nullity of Marriage

Cesar Cruz,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MEMORANDUM
The petitioner, Linda Manansala Cruz, through counsel, respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The petitioner filed this instant petition on January 06, 2010 for the 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 THE FACTS

1. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally married
on January 5, 2007 in a civil wedding headed by Judge Socorro. Lindas
mother Agnes Manansala, brothers Larry, Leon and Lucio, together with her
sister Luzviminda were there. Cesars mother, Regina, and older brothers
Daniel and Claro with younger sisters Clarise Javier and Edna also
attended., a copy of the their marraiage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A.
2. petitioner and respondent met on September 23, 2006 in a party in Tondo.
The petitioner describes that she drank too much. That night petitioner and
respondent conversed about their lives due to the fact that they share
similarities about being in a broken family, both stayed until 2 AM at the
party, after that respondent dropped petitioner home. They became close to
each other, the respondent surprised petitioner with chocolate and flowers.
Respondent treated petitioner for dinner once a week. After two weeks of
courting they bacame boyfriend and girlfriend. Both would go to parks,
movies, and the house of the respondents mother.
3. On November 29, 2006 The Respondent proposed to marry the petitioner,
who agreed. Petitioner did not mind that Respondent was financially
dependent to his mother and finished a two year vocational course on
Computer Science in STI, Manila, she knew that respondent did not have a
job, and was just laid off by his employer. They prepared a civil wedding
headed by Judge Socorro on January 5, 2007. After the wedding, Petitioner
and Respondent lived in one of the rooms at the house of the respondents
mothe. The respondents mother did not mind that they live there. While
petitioner gave little money for the bills and market expenses.
4. On May 2007, the petitioner got home from work. Respondents mother and
other siblings were in Nueva Ecija to attend to his grandfathers wake. she
saw that the house was unkept and dirty. There were lots of bottles of beer
on the table and the respondent was there sleeping on sofa. Even though she
was tired, she cooked and cleaned After a while petitioner went to sleep
when respondent went inside their room and told her to get up to buy him
more beer in a nearby sari-sari store, petitioner answered him to buy it
himself because he will drink it anyway. Respondent raised his voice and

slapped petitionere on her face. She had no choice but to get up and buy him
three bottles of San Miguel Pale Pilsen. The next morning, respondent
apologized. He said he was just very drunk and upset that his grandfather
died.
5. When they were okay, respondent asked her husband if they could move
from his mothers house and proposed that she would pay for their rent
espense. She got surprised when respondent and said that he is not inutile.
He claimes that his mothers house ie enough for the both of them.
Respondent got angry, and held her arm tightly. He raised his voice and said
that he is not inutile. Petitioner begged he husbang to remove his hand
because it will bruise, the respondent did not do so.
6. On July 2007, respondent went home drunk at 4:00 AM and ordered his wife
to cook food for him. Petitioner refused since she needs to rest because her
shift runs until 12, and only got home at 2 AM. Respondent then pulled the
petitioner forcefully from bed to the door which almost broke petitioners
hand. Respondent was stronger and bigger than the petitioner, the husband
was 58 while petitioner was only 50 tall. Petitioner cooked instant noodles
for him but as soon she gave it to her husband, respondent poured the hot
noodles to her. The respondent told his wife that he has no respect for him
because she earns money and he does not. Petioner then prepared fried egg
and rice for the respondent. She went to theie nearby clinic and it was found
out that she suffered. Even thought the petitioner was exhausted, she still
cooked fried rice and egg for her husband. Petitioner went to a doctor and
based on the findings, she suffered second degree burns on her chest and left
arm. Attached as Annex B hereof is a copy of the Medical Certificate.
7. The respondents mother comforted the petitioner and tried to convience the
respondent to be kinder to his wife. She also convienced the respondent to
find a job. The respondents mother explained that his son has Oppositional
Defiance Disorder (ODD) because of being in a broken family. Annex C
hereof is a copy of the Medical Certificate
8. On April 2009, petitioner asked respondent to come with her to her
grandmothers wake. Respondent said that he was not feeling well. On that
morning, she saw her husband go out of the house and visit their neighbor,
Arnold De Leon. Respondent went home at 1PM and smelled like gin.

Respondenst said that Wala kang kwenta, puro pagbunganga lang ang
alam mong gawin. Akala mo kung sino ka, E kaya naman tayo buhayin ni
nanay! Respondent added that he hates her.
9. After sometime, repondent took his mothers proposal. His mother paid for a
rental room near SM San Lazaro at 78-B Elena St., San Lazaro, Manila. On
December 2009, petitioner bought respondent decent clothes and shoes to
wear in his job interviews and eventually landed a job on March 2010.
Petitioner observed that her husband does not go to work regularly, one time
she visited his mother and to her surprise her husband was there, respondent
claimed that it was his day off. On June 2010, petitioner confronted
respondent if he was already terminated. Respondent got angry, and
answered that he was never employed. He just pretended that he went to
work so he can get away from petitioner and her nagging. They fought, and
respondent would hit his wife on her stomach. Petitioner suffered physical
abuses from her husband consistently. Respondent said that he had enough
of hers nagging, and forcing him to work when his allowance from his
mother was enough for the both of them. Petitioner begged him to not leave,
but he left and went to his mothers house.
10.According to the petitioner, her husband was not ready for having children.
When Luzviminda visited them with her three children, respondent shouted
because the children were very noisy while watching television. She also
confessed that her husband only touched her once a month and was too
quick.
11.In the span of nine years of marriage, respondent did not take any effort in
order to find a job, and perform his essential marital obligations. Instead, he
kept on battering his wife, and made her suffer from his being
psychologically incapacitated partner. A span of nine years proved that this
is so grave and permanent. Marriage entered by the petitioner and
respondent can be categorized as void ab initio since the latter was
psychologically incapacitated before the wedlock.

THE ISSUES
I.

Whether or not the Marriage between Linda Manansala Cruz and Cesar
Cruz is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity
manifested by the respondent.

II.

Whether or not the respondent psychologically incapacitated to comply

with the essential marital obligations which would warrant a declaration
of nullity of his marriage with the petitioner?

ARGUMENTS

I.

CESAR CRZ IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED. THUS,

THE MARRIAGE SHOULD BE VOID AB INITIO.

Lindas petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is anchored on Article 36

of the Family Code which provides:
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.
In Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21 (1995), the Court first declared
that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) judicial
antecedence; and (c) incurability. It must be confined "to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage."
In Dimayuga-Laurena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159220, 22 September
2008, 566 SCRA 154, the Court explained:
(a) Gravity It must be grave and serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;

(b) Judicial Antecedence It must be rooted in the history of the party

antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only
after the marriage; and
(c) Incurability It must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure
would be beyond the means of the party involved.
The respondent was examined with Defiance Disorder (ODD) because of
being in a broken family, whom Cesar Cruz suffered its symptoms and its
effects. The mother of Cesar Cruz testified that his conditions is grave and
incurable. The petitioner only knew about his condition after the marriage.
II. RESPONDENT IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND 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 irresponsible but he is psychological incapacitated

Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) because of being in a broken family

disabling her to comply with her marital obligations. The Respondent
had given the petitioner emotional, psychological and physical
damages through out the course of their marriage. He was dependent
of his mother and did not want to bore children in the future. He did
not manifest help and support for his wife, Linda.
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)

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner Linda Manansala
Cruz respectfully prays the Court to render judgement:
Declaring the marriage between Linda Manansala Cruz and Cesar Cruz as
void ab initio.
Ordering respondent Cesar Cruz to pay petitioner moral damages of PHP
300,000 and attorneys fees of PHP 150,000.00 including appearance fee for
counsel amounting to PHP 25, 000.00.
Petitioner prays for other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the
premises.
Manila City, Philippines, this 15th day of January, 2017.

SALAZAR SLYTHERIN LAW OFFICE

#367 Diagon Alley St., Manila Philippines
ATTY. RENZ MATTHEW I. CUNNINGHAM
Counsel for the Petitioner
PTR No. 7654321:1-11-01:B.C.
IBP No. 987443-12-21:B.C.
Roll No. 34566:32-32 Manila
World Trade Building, Binondo
Manila City

Copy furnished:
GODRIC GRIFFINDOR LAW OFFICE
#4 Privet Drive Little Whinging, Manila, Philippines
ATTY. ANNA MARIE B. DAYANGHIRANG
Counsel for the Respondent
PTR No. 1111111:1-11-01:B.C.
IBP No. 222222-22-22:B.C.

Roll No. 333333:3-33-33: Manila

#4 Privet Drive Little Whinging,
Manila, Philippines

EXPLANATION
In view of time and manpower restrictions, the above Memorandum was
served via registered mail as personal service could not be availed of without
causing undue hardship to plaintiff.
ATTY. RENZ MATTHEW I. CUNNINGHAM
Counsel for the Petitioner