Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

___ Judicial Region
Branch ___, Davao City

ANGELO DELOS ANGELES,

Petitioner,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. ____

FOR: DECLARATION OF
ANNIE DELOS ANGELES, NULLITY OF
Respondent. MARRIAGE
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COURT, defendant,

through the undersigned counsel, submits this Memorandum for the Defendants
and states that:

STATEMENT OF THE PARTIES:

Respondent Annie delos Angeles, filed the present action for damages
against Plaintiff Angelo delos Angeles. Annie attributes the emotional suffering,
sleepless nights and untold worries in addition to the plaintiff’s non supporting
actions and not doing his obligation as a father. Respondent here also claimed that
she had worried about her son who is being disowned by his own father due to his
baseless petition. Article 164 of the Family Code provides that there is a
presumption of legitimacy if the child is conceived or born during the marriage of
the parties. There is no question that the child was born during the marriage of
Angelo and Annie.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:

1.) Petitioner, while undergoing training in Batangas, being a member of the

Armed Forces of the Philippines came to know the respondent sometime on
May 2010 through the internet as a government employee based in Cebu City
and this continued internet chatting, led to their first personal meeting.
2.) That on January 29, 2011, petitioner and respondent contracted marriage before
the Hon. Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 1 Palace of
Justice, Capitol, Cebu City.

3.) On June 25, 2011, with petitioner somewhere in Mindanao, respondent gave
normal birth to a baby boy 36 1/7 weeks old, AOG, named Angelo Andrew
delos Angeles at the Cebu Velez Hospital.

4.) Per ultrasound report dated June 5, 2011, the relevant findings thereat show
that respondent’s LMP was September 20, 2010 with remarks pregnancy
uterine, 35 weeks and 1 day (+ 3 weeks) by fetal biometry, live, singleton,
cephalic presentation with estimated fetal weight is within the 10 th -90 th
percentile of normal growth curve pattern for a 36-37 week fetus.

5.) Respondent is sure that the child she was bearing is the Petitioner’s as she
never had carnal knowledge with anyone few months or weeks earlier than
October 18, 2010. Therefore, there was no fraud.

6.) Respondent partly admitted as to the fact that petitioner stayed for one (1)
week in Cebu after the birth of the child and that his last visit to Cebu City was
on December 15-20, 2012 but has no knowledge of the Petitioner’s doubts
about being the father of the child as he never showed nor communicated to her
his doubts. He was even present during the first birthday of the child on June
25, 2012. Even when parties quarreled sometime on December, 2012, he never
mentioned nor confronted her about it.

7.) Because of the baseless petitions of the plaintiff, Annie suffered from
emotional suffering, sleepless nights and untold worries. She is so worried
about her son who is being disowned by his own father.

ISSUES

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are presented for
discussion:

1.) Whether Article 164 of the Family Code applies to the said case and,
2.) Whether or not plaintiff is held liable of his responsibility as a father as
stated in the Civil Code
 ARGUMENTS

I. Article 164 of the Family Code is applied in this case.

A. Article 164 of the Family code provides that:

“Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are

legitimate. Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife
with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate
children of the husband and his wife, provided, that both of them authorized or
ratified such insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them
before the birth of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil
registry together with the birth certificate of the child. (55a, 258a)”

2. In this case, the couple acquired marriage under the presence of the Presiding
Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 1 Palace of Justice, Capitol, Cebu
City. This requisite alone makes the eligibility of born baby as the petitioner’s son.

3. It was only in the instant Petition that the paternity of the child is being
questioned by Angelo based only on the ground that the child was 36 1/7 weeks
AOG when he was born on June 25, 2011. Since his first sexual intercourse with
Annie happened less than 36 1/7 weeks or to be exact only around 35 4/7 weeks
before that or on October 18, 2010, it was impossible that the child was his.

4. Any doctor would know that the AOG is just an estimate and not exact. Doctors
usually estimate the age of the fetus from the date of last menstruation as they
would not be able to determine the exact date of implantation. Even the ultra sound
results as to the age of the fetus is also an estimate as the finding itself indicates +
3 weeks. In this case, the difference is even less than a week or only four (4) days.

II. Angelo is liable of his responsibility as the father of his son.

A. Art. 178 of the Family Code provides that:

“Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between

parents. The annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.
(270a)”

Here, the couple acquired their marriage as stated on the previous paragraph. The
wedding took place even after they found out that respondent Annie was pregnant.
2. Angelo did not also present any biological or scientific proof such as DNA or
other scientific tests that the child was not his. Thus, the presumption of legitimacy
prevails. He only accused the respondent of infidelity to avoid his responsibility to
support his son and his wife.

3. When the child was hospitalized, Angelo did not sustained the expenses and
only gave Annie ONE THOUSAND PESOS ONLY, which he is not sufficient.

4. As a father, it is his obligation to sustain the needs of his child.

5. Art. 166 of the FC provides that:

“(1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual
intercourse with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which
immediately preceded the birth of the child because of:

(a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his
wife;
(b) the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that
sexual intercourse was not possible; or
(c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevented sexual
intercourse;

(2) That itis proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could
not have been that of the husband, except in the instance provided in the second
paragraph of Article 164; or

(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial insemination, the

written authorization or ratification of either parent was obtained through
mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence.(255a)”

Herein, the child being born on the exact count of months prior to the marriage is
admissible for the legibility of their son.

6. If Petitioner is doubtful of his paternity, he should have filed prior to the

respondent’s complaint of his non-support.

7. It is clear that he is avoiding his obligation to support his child. There is no

reason to believe that the child is not his, under the Family Code, Angelo is obliged
to support the child and his wife for their needs which will amount to Ten
Thousand per month. Attached are the receipts for rentals, electricity, utilities,
food, vitamins, transportation and school expenses of the child.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court to render judgment in favor of the defendants and
against the plaintiff , DISMISSING the case for lack of merit.
Ordering Angelo delos Angeles to support his son and wife amounting
Php 10,000 and other expenses as provided in the Civil Code as his
obligation as the father.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
Done in 4thth day of May 2020, in the City of Davao, Davao del Sur
Annie Delos Reyes

(Sgd.) ATTY. REX BELTRAN

Counsel for Plaintiff
Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

EXPLANATION

In view of time and manpower restrictions, the above Memorandum was served via
registered mail as personal service could not be availed of without causing undue
hardship to plaintiff.

(Sgd.) ATTY. REX BELTRAN

Counsel for Palintiff