Answer to Petition for Declaration of Nullity

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH ____ MANILA

JUANA GO – DELA CRUZ, JDRC Case No. ___________ Petitioner,

(for:

Declaration of Nullity Under Article 36 of the Family Code)

-

versus -

JUAN DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x ANSWER Respondent, JUAN DELA CRUZ, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers the following in response to the Petition for Declaration of Nullity. 1. ¶2 is admitted insofar as his personal circumstances are concerned. 2. ¶16.2 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Respondent did have his reasons for getting angry at the Petitioner and that it was the latter who had locked herself up in the bathroom. 3. ¶19.2 is DENIED insofar as the Respondent’s supposed act of forcing the Petitioner to drink the water is concerned.

4. ¶21 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had sexual liaisons with other women is concerned. 5. ¶22 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Petitioner had requested the Respondent to engage in sexual intercourse with her. 6. ¶24.1 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had sexual intercourse with his masseur is concerned. 7. ¶25 is ADMITTED, insofar as the heated altercation is concerned. But it is averred that the Respondent was likewise the victim of battery inflicted by the Petitioner. 8. ¶25.1 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being as follows: 8.1. Petitioner and Respondent were inside their car, parked along Roxas Boulevard. Petitioner unnecessarily and unexpectedly raised the issue regarding the Respondent’s children. Specifically, the Petitioner expressed her desire to send them away from the family home. Petitioner then used profane and derogatory language to describe the said children, cursing their very existence. The Respondent tolerated the Petitioner’s behaviour for five (5) minutes, upon the lapse of which he demanded the latter to desist. In response, the Petitioner slapped and punched the Respondent, for which reason the latter was prompted to strangle her. However, the Petitioner bit the Respondent’s wrist and was thus able to escape. 8.2. The Petitioner ran away from the car and the Respondent followed her, demanding that she return. As the Petitioner ran, she turned her head to voice her refusal. This prevented her from seeing the light post ahead, which she ran into and hit her head. Forced into a stop by the pain, the Petitioner was quickly taken by the Respondent and brought to a hospital. 9. ¶27 on the consultation with Dr. Navarro is ADMITTED. But the Respondent DENIES that it is sufficient to establish his supposed psychological incapacity. The Respondent DENIES that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is grave enough to prevent him from complying with the essential marital obligations.

10. The Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defense that the petition FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. 10.1.

A cursory reading of the petition would show that it fails to allege the element of

INCURABILITY. In the case of Santos v. CA, the Supreme Court enumerated the three requirements of psychological incapacity: (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.1 10.2.

While ¶29 alleges juridical antecedence and ¶32 alleges gravity, NOWHERE IN

THE PETITION IS IT ALLEGED THAT THE SUPPOSED ROOT CAUSE OF THE RESPONDENT’S

PSYCHOLOGICAL

INCAPACITY

IS

PERMANENT

OR

INCURABLE. 10.3.

The Respondent thus respectfully prays that the petition be dismissed for

FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. _____________, Philippines, __Date__. VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE Counsel for Respondent 14th Floor Philamlife Tower 8767 Paseo de Roxas Paseo de Roxas, Makati City Tel. No. 702-5930 to 02 Email: [email protected]

By: CHRISTOPHER VIRTUCIO

JOHN

Roll No. 37489 IBP No. 457133/1-3-2014/Manila PTR No. 32414131/1-3-2014/Manila 1

310 Phil. 21 (1995).

Copy hereof received ______ this _________ day of ___________, ____________

JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Petitioner

VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Respondent

COPY FURNISHED:

JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM LAW OFFICE Counsel for Petitioner 27th Floor Trafalgar Bldg. 888 H.V. Dela Costa St., Makati City Tel. No. 800-0001 to 04 Email: [email protected]

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL Makati City

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Manila City