REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

6TH Judicial Region
Branch 25
Iloilo City

JUANA DELA CRUZ, CIVIL CASE NO. _______________

Plaintiff, FOR: JUDICIAL DECLARATION
-versus- OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

DEFENDANT JUAN DELA CRUZ, through the undersigned counsel and in

answer to the plaintiff’s complaint, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

1. That defendant admits the averments in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint;

2. That defendant partially denies paragraph 3. He had ventured on different

types of businesses from 1992 to the present date and is currently engaged in a
fishpond business.

The rest are admitted;

3. That defendant admits the averments in the second paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and

paragraph 8;

4. That defendant partially denies the averments contained in paragraph 9. Not

all living expenses were shouldered by his parents alone. Every month defendant
would give his father P3,000.00 as contribution for food, maintenance of the
residence, and various utility bills. This P3,000.00 contribution was deemed as
defendant and plaintiff’s mutual contribution. Plaintiff has never contributed to the
fund. Defendant did not inform plaintiff of this contribution because he did not want
to be “penny-pinched” by her.

The rest are admitted;

5. That defendant partially denies the averments contained in paragraph 10.

While his business endeavors forced him to be away from his family, it was not
without communication. Every month defendant would send a letter to plaintiff
asking of his family’s well-being. However, over the course of the correspondence,
plaintiff stopped replying. Defendant even received several of the letters he had sent
labelled as “return to sender.”
 Attached as Annex “1” is a compilation of receipts from the post office
showing that defendant had sent letters addressed to plaintiff to be delivered at her
address.

Attached as Annex “2” is a compilation of letters that have been labelled

“return to sender.”

The rest are admitted;

6. That defendant partially denies the averments contained in paragraph 11.

Plaintiff was not the only single-income earner of the family. Furthermore,
respondent did not give money to plaintiff sporadically. Respondent was a business-
owner and had an income of his own which he set aside a portion of in support of
his family. He consistently deposited this portion to plaintiff’s bank account,
however, no matter how much he deposited it was never enough for plaintiff.
Whenever defendant was home not away for business, plaintiff always complained
and demanded to him for more, as she always have since the beginning of the
marriage.

Attached as Annex “3” are the bank deposit receipts plaintiff received from
the plaintiff’s bank when he deposited money in her account.

The rest are admitted.

7. That defendant denies the averments contained in paragraph 12. He was

neither indifferent towards his family nor did he exert no effort at all in
communicating with them. Defendant constantly sent letters to plaintiff to the effect
of asking them how they were, why plaintiff was not replying, and expressed his
affections for them, as manifested in Annex 2. Defendant, during that time, avers
that he has always kept his family at the back of his mind;

8. That defendant admits the averments contained in paragraph 13;

9. That defendant denies the averments contained in paragraph 14; he was

neither informed of the well-being of plaintiff nor was he informed that she suffered
a miscarriage because she had stopped replying to his letters, nor was she exerting
any effort to communicate while he was away at all. Defendant only knew of the
miscarriage at a later time when plaintiff’s mother told him of the incident.

10. That defendant partially denies the averment contained in paragraph 15. He
had means to support his family and have been supporting them since 1991.
However, plaintiff was never contented with the amount of money he has been
providing her. Plaintiff would always ask for more and be suspicious that he was
holding back most of the money he was earning. Defendant avers that plaintiff failed
to understand that his business was not prosperous nor making a profit; that plaintiff
failed to appreciate the fact that he was still sending more than he could despite the
fact that his business was going through difficult financial periods. Defendant admits
that while the money he had sent at this time may not have been enough to provide
ample support for his family, he kept providing them nonetheless.

The rest are admitted.

11. That defendant denies the averment in paragraph 16. Defendant has never
been involved in an extra-marital affair. The person respondent was talking to on the
phone was his younger sister, and the gift that he had sent her was for her birthday.

12. That defendant denies the averment in paragraph 17. Defendant was neither
unconcerned and inattentive. The fact that he was present alone during the pre-
operation shows his genuine concern for plaintiff. However, ever since plaintiff
confronted him of his alleged extra-marital affair, despite his explanation, plaintiff
has refused to speak to him, and would only relay messages to him either through
her mother or some other person. With the impending operation respondent avoided
communications with petitioner to prevent stressing her.

13. That defendant has no knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments contained in paragraph 18 of the complaint therefore, hereby
deny he same.

14. That defendant admits the averment contained in paragraph 19, with the
qualification that he was uncooperative with Dr. George A. Tan because defendant
felt uncomfortable with him. Defendant tried to convince Pedro Dela Cruz that he
should see Dr. Jonathan B. Grandly instead because defendant was more
comfortable with Dr. Grandly and trusted him. However, Pedro refused.
Nonetheless, despite his brother’s refusal, defendant brought himself before Dr.
Grandly for the same purpose he saw Dr. Tan.

15. That defendant partially denies the averments contained in paragraph 20

because he does not have knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
whether or not his siblings knew that plaintiff told him to move out of their house
and therefore denies the same.

The rest are admitted.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

complaint be dismissed with costs against the plaintiff.

Defendant also prays for other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in
the premises.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 11th day of
March 2019 in Iloilo City, Philippines.

GRAN-LIG-SOM LAW OFFICE

Huervana St., La Paz, Iloilo City

by:

JOSHUA JOHN A. GRANADA

Counsel for the Petitioner
Roll No. 082557/4-4-17
IBP No. 312421 /(Lifetime)/Iloilo City
PTR No. 0548922/1-15-19/Iloilo City
MCLE Compliance No. V-19022568 –
04/04/19

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY AND PROVINCE OF ILOILO) S.S.

I, JUAN DELA CRUZ of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of Luna
St., Lapaz, Iloilo City, Philippines, after being sworn to in accordance with law,
depose and state:

1. I am the Defendant in the above-stated case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the Answer;

3. That the facts stated in the above Answer are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and authentic records;

4. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of
my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending in them;

5. If I should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed
or is pending after its filing, I shall report that fact within five (5) days from
notice to the court or where the complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed.
 IN WITNESS WHEROF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of March
2019 in Iloilo City, Philippines.

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 11th day of March 2019, in
Iloilo City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his Philippine Passport No. 987678
issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Iloilo City and valid until March 1,
2020.

Doc. No. 015; ATTY. STEPHEN L. PILA

Commission Serial No. 654321
Page No. 06; Notary Public for the City and Province of Iloilo
Book No. IV; Until January 01, 2020
Series of 2019. Pila Law Office, Jaro, Iloilo City
Roll No. 22211
PTR No. 0022233/1-10-20/Iloilo City
IBP No. 0022233/2-08-20/Iloilo City

Copy furnished:

Atty. Audrelyn D. Gonzales

Counsel for the Petitioner
Iloilo City

Personal service:

Received by: __________________

Date:_____________