Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 102, Quezon City

JOCYLINE ALMEDA OBISPO,

Petitioner,

-versus- JRDC CASE NO. 6869

FOR: DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

ARNOLD G. OBISPO,
Respondent.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------x

ME MORANDUM
FOR THE PETITIONER

PETITIONER, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this
Memorandum and states as follows:

THE PARTIES

Petitioner Jocyline Almeda Obispo, is of legal age, Filipino, and resident of 1149-A, Marzan St.,
Manila.

Respondent Arnold G. Obispo, is likewise of legal age, Filipino, and resident of No. 62, Gomez
St., Brgy. Paltok, San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a petition to declare the marriage between petitioner Jocyline Almeda Obispo and the
respondent Arnold G. Obispo an absolute nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code which provides:
 “Art 36. 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.”

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petitioner and respondent came to know each other in Barangay Paltok, Quezon City through
petitioner’s best friend. Since then, respondent became her suitor until they became steady. When
petitioner’s parents learned about it, they objected, telling her that respondent was a drug user. During
their relationship, respondent continued to maintain affairs with different girls which resulted in her
decision to save the relationship and took it upon herself that it is her mission to reform respondent.
Petitioner discovered one day that she was pregnant and when she informed the respondent, the latter
refused to take any responsibility and avoided seeing the petitioner. He only showed himself again after
the birth of their child, and it was during that time he finally decided to marry the petitioner.

Petitioner and respondent were legally married in a civil ceremony at the Quezon City Hall of
Justice on January 9, 1991, against the wishes of their respective parents. They now have five (5)
children: Ma. Laissa Kate, Rainier John, Louise Angelique, Leila Agnes, and Russel John.

Instead of reforming, respondent became worst. He continued to be a drug addict. He did not
like to work to support his family and was dependent on his parents and sisters for the daily sustenance
of his family. He spent most of his time with his friends, and he became irritable and would quarrel with
the petitioner whenever she would urge him to change ways. Respondent reached the point that he
became physically abusive to the petitioner by hurting her or throwing things at her in the presence of
their children. Even his children have lost their love and respect for him and wanted to be away from
him.

In the month June 2001, respondent was frequently throwing things at the petitioner, and they
had frequent fights. But it was the night of June 19, 2001 that the proverbial “last straw that broke the
camel’s back” happened. On that night petitioner ran out of the house and went to the police station
because of the physical violence done by the respondent against her and her daughter. She was scared
not only for herself but most specially for her daughter and her other children. She finally decided to
pack up and leave their conjugal home.

On June 20, 2001 at 4:00 a.m., petitioner silently left their conjugal him together with her
children as their life and safety have been endangered due to the continuous maltreatment and abusive
acts of the respondent caused by his worsening drug addiction.

As shown in the findings of the psychologist in her Psychological Report dated August 12, 2006
(Exhibit “G”), respondent’s pattern of behaviour is indicative of a personality deficit classified as
ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER. As found, he often acted in a way that disregards the feeling and
rights of other people, particularly his wife and children.
 During their marriage, the parties never acquired any property whether real or personal.

By reason, therefore, of the psychological incapacity of the respondent , petitioner is entitled to

a declaration of nullity of marriage in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code.

Despite receipt of the summons in the above-entitled case, respondent did not file his answer.

Pursuant to the Order of this Honorable Court dated January 5, 2009, the Honorable Assistant
City Prosecutor Arleen Tagaban, was directed to conduct an investigation in this case to determine
whether or not collusion exists between the parties and to submit his/her report thereon within one
month after receipt of the Order.

In an Order dated March 9, 2009, the Honorable Court confirmed the submission by the Public
Prosecutor assigned to the Court the Report to the effect that no collusion exists between the parties.

Respondent did not adduce evidence despite the opportunity given to him to present his
evidence. Hence, the submission of the case for decision.

DISCUSSION

I.
RESPONDENT ARNOLD G. OBISPO FAILED TO PERFORM HIS MARITAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW