Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 8th Judicial Region Branch 21 Laoang Northern Samar
Sheryl Ann Ronato-Alcera, Petitioner.
Civil Case No. 1012 For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
-versus-
Igmedio F. Alcera V, Respondent. x------------------------------------x ANSWER RESPONDENT, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers the following in response to the Petition for Declaration of Nullity.
ADMISSION AND DENIALS 1. He admits the allegations in paragraph 1,2,5, 9; 2. He specifically denies each and every material allegations in the paragraph ;
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1
AS AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, DEFENDANTS REPLEAD AND INCORPORATE THE FOREGOING AVERMENTS AND FURTHER ALLEGE: 3. The allegations in paragraph 3 is denied insofar as the Respondent’s supposed act of insistence and outburst is concerned. The truth of the matter being that the dispute between the farmers was serious and needs urgent attention that it must be resolved then and there by the owners of the land, the respondent’s parents, as the farmers involved were threatening to harm each other. Respondent declined to intervene in settling the dispute as the same would be best decided by his parents. Upon notice to Respondent’s parents, as land owners, they immediately and voluntarily went home after they attended a wedding ceremony and skipped the reception to settle the matters among their tenant- farmers; 4. Paragraph 4 is denied, the truth of the matter being that the pre-marital sex between petitioner and respondent was consensual being sweethearts deeply in love with each other. In so far as the alleged suicide attempt during said period, Respondent was in Hongkong having a vacation with his cousins. The allegation of attempted suicide is a mere conjecture to make it appear that the respondent is suffering from psychological incapacity early on, there being no medical report alleged in the complaint. A copy of Respondent’s round trip plane ticket from Philippines to Hong Kong dated October 14-23, 2016, is attached as ANNEX A and made as an integral part of the pleading; 5. Paragraph 6 is denied in so far as the Respondent’s supposed act of prohibiting petitioner to work, the truth being that the decision not to work for a period of 6 months after the wedding ceremony was a consensual so that they would enjoy their married life together without the hassle of work. After said period Respondent’s mother offered a recommendation for petitioner to work in the Governor’s office but the latter refused the offer. Respondent later found out through petitioner’s email 2
that the latter is applying to work abroad. Respondent then pleaded the petitioner a couple of times to reconsider her decision as they are only at the early stage of their marriage, but petitioner only showed annoyance at Respondent’s request and vehemently reasoned out that the Respondent is hindering her ambition to be successful; 6. Contrary to allegations in paragraph 7-a, it was petitioner who initiates fight over petty matters. She was the one who asserted dominance when fight would ensue, often threatening the Respondent to leave home knowing that the latter would always submit and ask for forgiveness even if the petitioner started the fight; 7. The allegations of petitioner in paragraphs 7(b) (c), is not without reason. The Respondent has been told by his friends that his wife was at times seen fetched by his exboyfriend in the church after mass. Respondent started asking the petitioner questions but the latter would only dismiss the conversation. The information conveyed to Respondent caused the serious fights between petitioner and respondent, as the former would always come home late, lock herself in their bedroom when she got home, knowing that the Respondent would question her about her ex-boyfriend. The fights aggravated when mere rumors were confirmed when Respondent was told by his friend Juan Miguel, that petitioner was having an affair with his former boyfriend James Reid who is working as a mailman in Catarman Post Office. According to Miguel, he saw petitioner and Reid in Aileen’s Restaurant in Catarman holding hands and exchanging kisses. The affidavit of Juan Miguel to this effect is attached as ‘Annex A’ and made an integral part of this pleading. 8. Paragraph 7(f) is denied, the truth of the matter being that it was the petitioner who avoided conversations about having a baby as it would compromise his determined plan to work abroad.
3
9. The hospitalization alleged in paragraph 7(g) is not without reason. The Respondent was heavily burdened as they kept on fighting over the relationship of the petitioner with his ex-boyfriend and her plans to work and leave away from him. Before that day, petitioner left home and said she will go to her parent’s house in Catubig to cool down. But that night Ash Ketchup, a friend and owner of Pink City Hotel called Respondent and over the phone told the latter that he saw petitioner and his paramour James Reid checked in the said hotel at around 11:30 pm. (Affidavit of Ketchup is attached hereto as ANNEX C.) Due to this information, the Respondent called petitioner many times but to no avail. Unable to cope up with the frustration, feeling of betrayal and anger caused by the acts of her wife, Respondent in a regrettable fashion tried to end his life; 10. The consultation with Dr. Hidago is admitted as stated in paragraph 7(h). The Respondents parent’s requested that the former seek the help of a physician regarding his state of depression which caused him to attempt against his own life. But respondent denies that it is sufficient to establish his supposed psychological incapacity and is not grave enough to prevent him from complying with essential marital obligations; 11. Contrary to allegations that respondent is suffering from Histrionic Personality Disorder Coupled with Dependent Personality Disorder found in paragraph 7(j) (k)(l), Respondent engaged the services of Dr. Quack Quack to examine if Respondent is suffering from such personality disorder. The evaluation showed negative results. Attached herein is the copy of the psychological evaluation report of Dr, Quack Quack attached as ANNEX D. 12. Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defense that the petition FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. 12.1 A cursory reading of the petition would show that it fails to sufficiently allege the element of 4
gravity and incurability. In the case of Santos vs. Court of appeals, the Supreme Court enumerated the three requirements of psychological incapacity; (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.1 12.2 While the petition alleges judicial antecedence, the petition failed to sufficiently alleged that the supposed root cause of the respondent’s psychological incapacity is grave and incurable; 12.3Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.2
13.
In the words of the Supreme Court: “An unsatisfactory marriage, however is not null and void marriage. No less that the Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of family; it decrees marriage as legally inviolable and protects from dissolution at the whim of the parties.”3
1 310 Phil. 21 (1995) 2 Republic vs Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198 3 Perez-Ferraris vs Ferraris, GR 162368 (July 17, 2006) 5
PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered dismissing the petition for Decalaration of Nullity of marriage between petitioner Sheryl Ann Ronato-Alcera and respondent Igmedio F. Alcera V for failure to show proof that it is null and void under Article 36 of the family Code. All other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for. Catarman, Northern Samar, June 20, 2016.
Atty Keena D. Caimol Counsel for Respondent Real St, Brgy 3 San Lorenzo Rosario Northern Samar Roll No. 12345 IBP No. 23456/1-3-2016/ Catarman Northern Samar PTR No. 34567/1-3-2016/ Catraman Northern Samar MCLE Compliance No. I 2678 MCLE Compliance No. II 3678
Copy hereof received this day of June 20, 2016
COPY FURNISHED THROUGH PERSONAL SERVICE
Adah Gwynne P. Tobes 6
Counsel for Petitioner Brgy. Santol, Catarman Northern Samar IBP: 885443, 02/10/2016, Catarman Northern Samar PTR No. 13257, 01/16/2016, Catarman Northern Samar Roll No. 49586, 4/8/2014, Manila MCLE Compliance No. IV-459932, 7/09/2016, Davao City
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Tiburcio Espera, messenger of Atty Keena D. Caimol, herein counsel for Respondent Igmedio F. Alcera V, hereby certify that I personally delivered Respondent’s answer dated September June 20, 2016, to Petitioner Sheryl Ann RonatoAlcera with address at Brgy 7, Catubig Northern Samar. The Answer was received by the Petitioner herself.
Tiburcio Espera Affiant
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of June, 2016 at Catarman Northern Samar, affiant exhibited to me his Postal I.D. No. 78990 issued at Rosario Northern Samar.
Atty Ronil Otan Notary Public PTR No. 5642/ 11-5-2016 IBP No. 8162/ 11-10-2016 MCLE Compliance No. 7856 Roll No. 7855
7
Doc No. 11 Page No. 26 Book No. 3 Series of 201
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL Makati City
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Catarman Northern Samar
8
