Answer Annulment Case

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Tenth Judicial Region Branch 1 Butuan City, Agusan del Norte JUANITA Z. PEREZ Petitioner. Civil Case No. 0001-2013-A -versus-

For: Annulment of Marriage and Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

JUAN A. PEREZ Respondent. x ---------------------------------------------/

ANSWER COMES NOW, the respondent through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits his answer and avers that: THE PARTIES 1. Petitioner Juanita Z. Perez, is of legal age, married to respondent, Filipino citizen and with present residence address at Purok 10, Brgy. Ampayon, Butuan City, Philippines. 2. Respondent Juan Z. Perez, is of legal age, married to petitioner, a Filipino citizen, with residence address at Block 1 Lot 1 Phase 2, Emily Homes, Brgy. Libertad, Butuan City, Philippines, where he may be served with notices and other processes; 3. This answer is made by the respondent for the purpose of denying the allegations of the petitioner and show the court his dissent to the annulment of their marriage; 4. Respondent firmly believes that their marriage problems can be solved by means other than this proceeding. 5. The following are the facts and events showing that the respondent does not suffer psychological incapacity;

NON-EXISTENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY A. Respondent’s infidelity (philanderer) 6. Respondent vehemently objects to being labeled as a philanderer. His good looks and being caring is often misunderstood by several women. They tend to think that he feels something for them and consequently, rumors about a relationship would spread. 7. Miss Juanita Z. Perez, on the other hand, would easily believe those rumors which are utterly unsubstantiated. It is only because of the petitioners prejudice and unfounded jealousy that she could think that those are respondent’s girlfriends. 8. The allegation of an affair with a woman in Taiwan, and continued communication between respondent and the latter is an outright falsity, uncorroborated by any piece of evidence. 9. Furthermore, it has been held in Villalon v. Villalon, G.R. No. 167206, November 18, 2005, and other various cases that sexual infidelity, by itself, is not sufficient proof that petitioner is suffering from psychological incapacity. It must be shown that the acts of unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered personality which make petitioner completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage. 10. Respondent, in his heart and mind, have learned to adore, truly and faithfully, the petitioner. It is but a big disgrace and irony that he would want a woman other than his wife. There could be no other woman who could be greater or even just equal the beauty and personality of his wife. B. Evaluation by the Clinical Psychologist 11. Respondent’s alleged psychological condition was evaluated indirectly from the information gathered solely from petitioner and her witnesses. This factual circumstance evokes the possibility that the information fed to the psychiatrist is tainted with bias for petitioner’s cause, in the absence of sufficient corroboration. 12. In a similar case, the Court has held that to make conclusions and generalizations on a spouses psychological condition based on the information fed by only one side, similar to what we have pointed out in the case at bar, is, to the Courts mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence. 13. The psychologist’s observation on respondent, based on the information offered by petitioner and her witnesses, does not suffice as a consideration for the conclusion that respondent was – at the time of their marriage – psychologically incapacitated to enter into a marital union. 14. Art. 36 of the Family Code, to which petitioner anchored her case refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage, and should not be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. C. Respondent’s chronic refusal to provide support and consequent abandonment 15. It is utterly false that he does not support his wife and children. This proposition is bereft of evidence. It is a settled rule that mere allegation is not tantamount to proof.

16. Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations.(Republic of the Philippines vs. Encelan, G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013.) 17. Respondent believes that the family is the foundation of the nation and the basic social institution. It should at all times be cherished and protected. It should not be shattered by mere misunderstanding brought about by insecurities and unfounded jealousy. D. Conclusion 18. The Supreme Court held in Dimayuga-Larena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159220, September 22 2008 that psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage must be characterized by the following elements: (a) Grave – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; (b) Juridical 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) Incurable and Permanent – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. 19. The allegations of petitioner, however, failed to show that the respondent’s capacity is grave, incurable and permanent, and has juridical antecedence. 20. Respondent may have committed faults as a husband and as father but those were not enough to severe the relationship tied before our Supreme God. What God has joined together, let no one separate. 21. Respondent may have caused few bad memories, but petitioner must not forget the thousand good memories that they had together. Those times when every single moment spent together is like a dream come true. Thus, instead of thinking about separation, why not pursue the path to reconciliation. PRAYER WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent most respectfully prays to this Honorable Court that the petition for the annulment of marriage and declaration of the nullity of marriage filed by JUANITA Z. PEREZ be dismissed. Respectfully submitted. Butuan City, Philippines, this 15th day of February 2016.

ANTIGUA AND PALER LAW FIRM Unit 2, 4th floor, XCZ Building Montilla Blvd, 8600 Butuan City Telefax: (085) 324-5637 By: Atty. Alec Vladimir Paler Counsel for the Respondent IBP No. 79686574 12-19-2012 Butuan City PTR No. 88908768 01-03-2013 Butuan City TIN 546-833-876 Roll No. 1798578, Page No. 988, Book LXI MCLE Compliance No. V- 13428 Mobile No. 092134567811

VERIFICATION I, Juan Z. Perez, of legal age, married to petitioner, a Filipino citizen, with residence address at Block 1 Lot 1 Phase 2, Emily Homes, Brgy. Libertad, Butuan City, Philippines., under oath, depose and state; 1. I am the respondent in this case; 2. That I have caused the preparation of this pleading; 3. I have fully read and understood the same; 4. That the allegations contained therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and on authentic documents; TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I hereby set my hand this 6th day of December 2013 in Butuan City, Philippines.

JUAN Z. PEREZ Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in Butuan City, this 28th day of January, 2016 by Juan Z. Perez with CTC No. 123456 issued on January 15, 2016 at Butuan City, and with Passport No. 9876534 issued on January 1, 2015 at Manila, Philippines valid until January 1, 2025. Atty. Emilia Celestine Paler NOTARY PUBLIC J.C. Aquino Avenue, Butuan City Commission Serial No. 5637395 Until December 31, 2016 Roll of Attorney 86737395/3.15.2010 IBP No. 1231443/12.30.15/Butuan City PTR No. 234235/1.5.16/ Butuan City MCLE Compliance No. V- 13428 TIN 131-0000-13-59 Doc. No. 52; Page No. 89; Book No. 24; Series of 2016.