REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 1
BATANGAS CITY

ARIEL DE CASTRO AYA,

Petitioner, Spec. Proc. No. 10-8772
For: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage under Article 36
-versus- of the Family Code of the
Philippines

THELMA D. JOYO-AYA,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

PETITIONER, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court most

respectfully submits the following as its memorandum:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This instant petition was filed on January 29, 2010 by the petitioner

for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of Psychological

Incapacity of the respondent, which is the ground provided for under

Article 36 of the Family Code.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On July 6, 2010, petitioner ARIEL DE CASTRO AYA was presented to

the witness stand and he was able to testify and prove that respondent has

failed to fulfill her duties as a wife to the petitioner to the point that she

(respondent) has failed to give love, respect and support to petitioner

which are the most essential marital obligation. Article 68 of the Family

Code specifically recites:

“ Article 68 – The husband and the wife are obliged to live

together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual
help and support. “

On September 14, 2010, petitioner through counsel presented Dr.

Angelita L. Mercado-Acosta a physician-psychiatrist, 63 years old,

residing at Bolbok, Batangas City, who was able to testify that respondent

was psychologically incapacitated before, during and after her marriage

with the petitioner and likewise proved that respondent, is suffering from
“Histrionic Personality Disorder”.

On November 8, 2010, petitioner through counsel presented Jaime

M. Aloria Jr., the childhood friend of the petitioner who collaborated the

testimony of petitioner as far as the failure of the respondent to comply

with all essential marital obligations.

For continuous failure of the respondent to appear on several

hearings (December 7, 2010 and February 22, 2011) set by the Court,

respondent right to present evidence was considered waived by virtue of

an Order dated February 22, 2011.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not respondent was only able to prove emotional

immaturity and irresponsibility of the respondent which cannot be equated

with psychological incapacity.

2. Whether or not the petitioner was able to substantiate his claim that

respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital

obligation and that the respondent’s acts are not merely a “DIFFICULTY” if

not outright “REFUSAL” or “NEGLECT” to perform some marital duties

(Republic vs Court of Appeals Molina 268 SCRA 198); and

3. Whether or not the instant case merely involves irreconcilable

differences and conflicting personalities.

DISCUSSION

I. RESPONDENT IS NOT ONLY EMOTIONALLY

IMMATURE AND IRRESPONSIBLE BUT IS
INCAPABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL
MARITAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE.

Article 68 of the Family Code is very categorical on the rights and

obligations of husbands and wives as it succinctly puts:

“Article 68 – The husband and the wife are obliged to live

together,
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support.”

Clearly, respondent was not able to comply with it, further, not only

is respondent emotional immature and irresponsible but she is

psychological incapacitated (Histrionic Personality Disorder) disabling her

to comply with her marital obligations.

 “While the law provides that the husband and wife are obliged to live

together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Article 68, Family

Code), the sanction therefor is actually the “spontaneous mutual

affection between husband and wife” and not any legal mandate or

Court Order”. (Cuaderno vs. Cauderno, 120 Phils 1298)

This “spontaneous and mutual affection between husband and

wife” could hardly be inferred if not impossible to realize when respondent

adamantly failed to support the needs of her husband and worse,

respondent had an adulterous relationship and is in fact now living with

another man.

These facts were sufficiently proven during presentation of the

testimonies of the witnesses for the petitioner and they are hereby quoted:

Atty. Aguilera

Q How was your relationship with the respondent after your

wedding?

Witness:

A She showed her true self to me. She always wanted her own way like

for example is she did not allow me to sleep in their room simply because I

commented on her way of cooking.

Atty. Aguilera

Q What happened thereafter?

Witness:

A My wife became a constant nagger. She would shout at me at every

instant. There are times I would force to console respondent even if clearly

respondent was unreasonable.

Atty. Aguilera

Q What happened next?

Witness:

A One time, she threw an electric fan at me. In another occasion, she

screamed and humiliated me at the public wet market where petitioner’s

family owns a meat shop business. I always experienced that constant

nagging and screaming and I never felt a day of peace from the

respondent.

Atty. Aguilera

Q What happened next?

Witness:

A On one occasion, my wife told me that she wanted a separation.

When I consented to her wishes, she threatened to kill herself. In another

occasion, she slapped me in my face while I am sleeping. Due to my marital

dilemma, I started to drink in order to relieve me of my tension from my

wife.
Atty. Aguilera

Q After that incident, what happened with your relationship with the

respondent?

Witness:

A After the incident, I decided to leave our house as I could not stand

the nagging and screaming of my wife.

Atty. Aguilera

Q During your separation, what happened to the respondent?

Witness:

A During the first year of separation, she had an adulterous affair. A

year after, she had a miscarriage from her adulterous affair which triggered

her to attempt commit suicide by ingesting Baygon, a pesticide.

(TSN August 24, 2010, p 8 of 18 and p 9 of 18)

“Love is useless unless it is shared with one another. Indeed, no

man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say “I could

not have cared less”. This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled

self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual

intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a

gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which

enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family

relations. (Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals, G.R. 119190, January 16,

1997)

II. PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS

CLAIM THAT RESPONDENT WAS PSYCHOLOGICALLY
INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY WITH HER MARITAL OBLIGATION AND
RESPONDENT’S ACTS ARE NOT MERELY A “DIFFICULTY” IF NOT
OUTRIGHT “REFUSAL” OR “NEGLECT” TO PERFORM SOME MARITAL
DUTIES.

The inclusion in the Family Code of Psychological Incapacity had its

bearings in the Canon Law Code. Thus Canon 1095, paragraph 3 reads:

"They are incapable of contracting marriage: who lack sufficient

use of reason; who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment
concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties which are to be
mutually given and accepted; who are not capable of assuming the
essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a psychic nature".

Psychological Incapacity is now accepted in civil law as ground for

civil marriage annulment. Of course, it has already been for years favored

in the annulment of Catholic religion marriages. (Dr. Gerardo Ty Veloso,

Questions and Answers on Psychological Incapacity as Ground for Marriage

Annulment under Article 36 of the Family Code, pp 13 – 25)

Relative to this, in the case of Republic vs Molina, (G.R. No. 108763,

February 13, 1997) the Court made this pronouncement:

 “Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts”.

Apparently, it has been clearly proven by Dr. Angelita L.

Mercado-Acosta, when her testimony was given at the witness stand that

respondent is suffering from “Histrionic Personality Disorder”, a form of

Psychological Incapacity. As such, respondent has been psychologically

incapable to fully understand, internalize or feel and actuate the real

essence of marriage before, during and after their wedding.

The adult-like body that respondent is simply not mentally

and emotionally to carry the necessary elements of marriage on her

shoulders, the pervasively confused adolescent in her held self centered

and inadequate making it very difficult for her to handle the responsibilities

and obligation of a matured married person.

These manifestations of respondent’s pathological sense of

inconsiderateness, inadequacy, insecurity and dependency would have not

surfaced had she not entered the bond of marriage, for marriage is one

institution which required the adult in her to give up emotional hangovers

and positively sublimate her hostile feeling and insecurities all in the name

of a matured heterosexual relationship.

III. THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE

MERE IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES AND CONFLICTING
PERSONALITIES BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT BUT
RATHER, IT INVOLVES THE INABILITY OF THE RESPONDENT TO
COMPLY WITH HER MARITAL OBLIGATIONS.
 The lack of steadfast commitment to a responsible marriage, support

and love to her husband, despite petitioner’s effort, were glaring

manifestations of respondent’s insensitivity, inconsiderateness and

selfishness that make her incapable to comply with her marital obligations.

“It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and

private respondent. That is – a shared feeling which between husband and

wife must be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy

but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way

process. An expressive interest in each other’s feelings at a time it is

needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital

relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting

adults who view the relationship with love “ amor gignit amorem”, respect,

sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its

value as a sublime social institution”. (Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals,

G.R. 119130, January 16, 1997)

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Batangas City, March 23, 2011.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing

Memorandum be noted accordingly and after due hearing, Respondent be

declared psychological incapacitated to perform their essential marital

obligations, and consequently, declare Petitioner’s marriage to Respondent

null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

 Petitioner prays for such other and further reliefs just and equitable
under the premises.

Batangas City, March 23, 2011.

AGUILERA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Petitioner
ARIEL DE CASTRO AYA
Block E, Unit 13
Caedo Commercial Center
National Highway, Bo. Calicanto
Batangas City, 4200 Philippines