Memorandum

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Pasig City Branch 261 MARY ANN PACHEJO-ALRAMAH, Petitioner, - versus -

JDRC Case No. 9106 For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

ASSAD S. ALRAMAH, Respondent. X------------------------X MEMORANDUM This is a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article. 36 of the Family Code. Copies of the Petition were sent by personal service to the Office of the Solicitor General and to the Office of the City Prosecutor. Because the respondent is a foreigner, of Arab Nationality and is not a resident of the country, summons upon the respondent was served by publication. However, prior thereto, summons was served at his last known residence and thereafter, petitioner caused the service thereof by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. After the summons and copy of the petition were published, the Court issued an Order directing the Office of the City Prosecutor to conduct an investigation whether or not collusion was present in the filing of the petition; whereupon, Assistant City Prosecutor Nonilon L. Tagalicud was directed to conduct investigation as to whether or not collusion exist between the parties in the filing of the instant petition. In his report dated June 13, 2012, which Assistant City Prosecutor Tagalicud submitted to this court, he stated that " there appears to be no collusion between the parties ". Thereafter, pre-trial conference was set and terminated on May 13, 2013 admitted fact/s was stipulated, issues were defined and the documents were marked, After the pre-trial of this case, trial on the merits ensued.

Page 02. From the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by herein petitioner, it appears that the petitioner and respondent met each other sometime year 2000 while working as a waitress in a restobar in Mabini. Respondent and his foreigner friends, all Saudi Nationals, were customers then.

He was instantly attracted to the petitioner who was very young at age 22

while he was twice her age. On the other hand, she was attracted to him because she was treated very special by him, showering her with gifts and attention and his generosity extended not only to her but to her family as well. Hence for two years, whenever respondent would be in the country for brief vacations, he saw her several times and courted her to no end. Petitioner was persuaded. In May 19, 2002, they married, even though she knew he was already married, he being a Muslim. She did not convert to Islam and has to date remained a catholic. After their marriage, he bought a condominium unit in Pasig City on installment, where they stayed. Being a foreigner, he would only be here for several days, and be back to his country where his business and livelihood was. He would be away for months until his next visit to the country and be with petitioner again. Respondent likewise testified on the different situationers when she and respondent were still living together, such as: a.)

Respondent was an incurable womanizer and without serious commitment to his wife;

b.)

Respondent was a manipulative, controlling man and in the extreme would even resort to emotional blackmail, even threatening to kill or hurt himself, to get what he wants;

c.)

Respondent failed to be considerate and respect petitioner’s preferences as his wife so much so that he resorted to marital rape, whenever he want sex at times and at all costs;

d.)

Respondent was a self-centered man, irrationably the jealous, domineering type so that even when he was not in the country, petitioner still felt she was his prisoner;

e.)

Respondent did not honor and comply with the basic marital obligations of mutual love, respect and support as enumerated in Art. 68 of the Family Code;

f.)

Respondent had completely abandoned her since the latter part of 2004 up to the present.

Page 03. As a result of respondent’s psychological incapacity their marital life was characterized by constant quarrels & misunderstandings whenever respondent was around even for a few days. When he is abroad, he checks on her every hour on the hour and even verifies if she is already at home by asking her to open the television set or radio or talk with the maid. He was irrationably the jealous type and would imagine she had a boyfriend. Worse, he only leaves her enough money for food and payment of monthly bills and not for sudden or unanticipated emergencies so that when she is sick or her sickly mother needed to be brought in the hospital or for whatever emergency situation, she does not have money to spend. Much as she would like to earn her own money, respondent prohibited her from working.

In court, in answer to the query, “but when you finally live together with him?”, she responded, “ Wen we live together, he treated me differently, he was very demanding. Palagi po siyang lumalabas, umiinon sa mga bar, siempre po nagagalit na ako dahil umuuwi sya ng madaling araw tapos magtatalo po kami then magdedemand po sya ng sex kahit na umiiyak po ako. May time po na kahit mayroon ako, gagalawin niya rin po ako. Masyado pong nabababoy napo ako.”

On cross examination, the prosecutor was able to elicit the following information from the witness:

1.

That he wanted her to convert to become a Muslim but because they were always

quarreling because of cultural and religious differences, she did not convert; 2. That petitioner always felt that she was his possession so much so that she had not say in their lives; 3. That he was very abusive to her emotionally and sexually to her; 4. That he left her in 2004 and never came nor call back so that she was no longer able to continue to pay for the condominium they purchased on installment.

Page 04.

Petitioner’s corroborative witness was her sister, Janet Pachejo. Like petitioner, she testified by virtue of a Judicial Affidavit. In brief, she testified that she lived with her sister, the petitioner in the Condominium unit where she and her husband stayed and thus whenever the husband of her sister was in the Philippines, she was a witness to their relationship and his brother-in-law’s lifestyle whenever he is in the country. In her Judicial Affidavit, in Answer to the query, “What if, any, did you notice about his treatment or relationship with each other? She answered…”He was very bossy, very possessive, overly jealous even to our cousin or their neighbor. He demands to be served. When he is angry at my sister, he does not hide it from us and would also be angry with all of us. In fact, when I am at their unit and he is angry or jealous, he will also not talk with me. He treats my sister differently after they were married already. Whereas before, he treated her like a princess; after they were married, he treated her like a servant and this time around, he was not good and gentle to her.” Next to testify was expert witness, Mrs. Nedy Tayag, a clinical psychologist, who conducted a series of tests upon petitioner and her corroborative witness. Likewise testifying on Judicial Affidavit, she found her to be psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligation. Clinically, she said that petitioner is suffering from Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder with traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Essentially, this was

manifested in her being weak-willed, who allowed herself to be trampled upon by the respondent’s brutality. She relied heavily on respondent when she could have done things to be productive. She was very gullible and easily trusting of people that she never learned from her mistakes and wrong experience altogether. Psychologist Nedy Tayag traced the root cause of her personality condition back from her childhood days. On the part of the respondent, she found him to be suffering from Anti-Social Personality Disorder. According to Mrs. Tayag and we quote: “Assad has no plan for himself but to live a life that was filled with fun and enjoyment and free of commitments and responsibilities. He was an incurable womanizer and without serious commitment to his wife. He was manipulative man and even resorted to emotional blackmail by threatening to kill or hurt himself to get what he wanted. He lacked due empathy towards the feelings of his wife and is negligent of her needs and personal well-being. He failed to be considerate and disrespected petitioner’s preference as his wife that he resorted to marital rape. He was a self-centered man, irrationally jealous, domineering that even when he was not in the country, Petitioner still felt that she was his prisoner, lacked adequate trust as he was always suspicious of petitioner. When he was abroad, he checked on her every hour even verified if she is already at home by asking her to open the

Page 05.

television or radio or by talking with the maid. He was highly irresponsible and did not honor his obligations as the husband. He only left her enough money for food and payment for monthly bills and not for sudden or unanticipated events or for whatever emergency situation. He was seen to be impulsive and disrespectful towards petitioner. He lacked depth towards his commitments and lack the ability to direct his own household. He has not insight towards his commitments and lacked the ability to direct his own household. He has no insight towards his defective behavior as he never accepted the responsibility for his faults.

Respondent’s psychological dysfunction can likewise be traced from his childhood experiences that have significantly affected his socio-emotional growth and adjustment. The Psychological dysfunction of both petitioner and respondents are grave, serious, chronic, severe and incurable. These findings were revealed in her Report. On cross examination by the trial prosecutor, Mrs. Tayag explained that Anti-Social in layman’s term in a clinical setting is referred as “hardened emotional criminal” and is manifested in exploitative behavior, manipulative behavior, defying personal and moral conviction, irresponsibility in all aspect and lack of empathy. Also, it does not mean that because the respondent is a Saudi National practicing Muslim, he was already free to treat his wife in an abusive manner because the standard in treating a wife or a husband is universal and culture has nothing or little to do with religion or culture. In like manner having anal sex with a wife is a not a regular norm. On the other hand, it was elicited from the witness that the petitioner too has a psychological dysfunction, i.e. passive-aggressive, manifested in her allowing herself to be exploited and manipulated on the notion that at the back of her mind, she can get out of it and it has something to do with her developmental milestone and predisposition to project an image that “I can tolerate something because at the back, I know for sure that I will be satisfied.

Page 06.

At the end of the expert witness’ testimony, she recommended that, in view of her clinical findings that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage, the marriage be declared a nullity. Petitioner was able to prove her petition that her marriage to her husband, a Saudi National, who has never returned to her and who during their marriage failed to comply with the essential obligations of marriage, should never have been celebrated at all. Further, she, too, was also found to be psychologically incapable to comply with the essential obligations of marriage under Art. 36 of the New Family Code. The characteristics of psychological incapacity must exhibit gravity, antecedence and incurability. It is grave if the subject cannot carry out the normal duties of marriage and the family shouldered by any average couple existing under everyday circumstances of life and work. It is antecedent to marriage if at least the roots of the trouble can be traced to the history of the subject before the marriage, although its overt manifestations appear only after the wedding. Lastly, it is incurable if the required treatments exceed the ordinary means of the subject.

Thus, if the required treatments exceed the ordinary means of the subject, his

psychological fitness is incurable. The determination whether a person is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage is on a case-to-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances attending the marital relationship of the couple. The actions and attitude of a spouse towards his or her partner and to the marital relationship are classified as manifestations of psychological incapacity. Such manifestation must be directly related to the exercise of the spouse’s marital obligations of the spouse to his or her partner. Thus in the case of Ngo Te v. Uu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled and we quote: “Each case must still be decided based upon the facts attending to the same. Every annulment case must be decided and treated differently. An annulment of marriage based upon psychological incapacity is not against the constitutional policy of protecting the marriage as a social institution.

In fact it protects the spouses in the

marriage, who in the first place should not have been married because the other party is suffering from psychological incapacity. In fact, Article 36 of the Family Code is designed to protect the sanctity of marriage by annulling those marriages of people who are suffering from psychological incapacity to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.”

Page 07.

“It may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality anomaly. Let it be noted that in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the beginning. To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.” In the case of Ting v. Ting, G.R. No. 166562, the Supreme Court held and we quote: “To require the petitioner to allege in the petition the particular root cause of the psychological incapacity and to attach thereto the verified written report of an accredited psychologist or psychiatrist have proved to be too expensive for the parties. They adversely affect access to justice of poor litigants. It is also a fact that there are provinces where these experts are not available. Thus, the Committee deemed it necessary to relax this stringent requirement enunciated in the Molina case. But where, as in this case, the parties had the full opportunity to present professional and expert opinions of psychiatrists tracing the root cause, gravity and incurability of a party’s alleged psychological incapacity, then such expert opinion should be presented and accordingly, be weighed by the court in deciding whether to grant a petition for nullity of marriage. Such is the case at bar, the clinical psychologist was able to conduct a clinical study on the psychological incapacity of both petitioner and respondent to comply with the essential obligations of marriage and was able to identify its juridical antecedents and prove the gravity and incurability of the psychological dysfunction. Petitioner and respondent could never live together harmoniously considering the psychological incapacity of the respondent. Their marriage is already beyond repair, as possible reconciliation and respect fidelity authentic cohabitation as husband and wife, mutual help support, and commitment did not and will no longer exist between them. With due consideration of the above-mentioned findings, the psychologist recommended that the marriage that ties between petitioner and respondent, be declared null and void".

Page 08.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent be declared void from the beginning under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Quezon City for Pasig City. September 2, 2015.

Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA Counsel for the Petitioner Wheels Executive Suites Wheels Building No. 222 E. Rodriguez Sr., Ave., Quezon City PTR No. 3114149 January 7, 2015 Rizal IBP No. 977084 January 7, 2015 Rizal Roll No. 33476 MCLE Compliance V No. -0001086 November 5, 2013 Tel. Nos. 416-3901; 09209053089 Copy Furnished: Office of the City Prosecutor--- Personal Service Pasig City. Office of the Solicitor General -----Registered Mail with Return Card Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village Makati City. Explanation A copy of this Memorandum was sent to the Office of the Solicitor General by registered mail instead of personal service in view of the lack of messenger to effect personal service. Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA