PRE-WORK

Identifying Facts
1.) Legal Dispute- Annulment
2.) Rewriting the legal dispute-
Whether or not the grounds of psychological incapacity should be appreciated
3.) Sorting out facts
a. Miguel and Olive had been married for 15 years.
b. After their wedding on 10 September 2005, the couple moved to Olive’s family compound in
San Juan city. They occupied the third floor of the house of Olive’s Parents.
c. One year into their marriage, Miguel noticed that Olive relied heavily on her parents and left
domestic duties in the care of her parents' helpers.
d. Miguel tried to persuade Olive to live somewhere else and start their life as husband and wife
in a home separate from Olive's parents.
e. Olive refused. She argued that there was no need for them to leave since they already have
what they needed and her parents enjoyed their company. She did not want to leave them in their
senior years.
f. In one instance, while driving home, Miguel again asked Olive to move out of her parents'
house. After a heated argument, Olive got out of their car, ran to the sidewalk, and called her
father to pick her up.
g. In another instance, the couple got into an argument when Miguel suggested that they consult
a fertility doctor. This offended Olive and she accused Miguel of blaming her for not bearing any
children despite their 15-year marriage.
h. Distraught over the state of their marriage, Miguel filed a petition for annulment of marriage
citing Olive's psychological incapacity to perform her marital obligations. Attached to Miguel's
petition is the Judicial Affidavit of a clinical psychologist, attesting to the fact that Olive is
diagnosed with borderline and dependent personality disorder.
i. Olive opposed the petition stating that Miguel only wants to dissolve their marriage so he
could justify his relationship with another woman. She asserts that she hired a private
investigator to follow Miguel and she discovered that since April 2018, Miguel had been seeing a
woman in a condominium building in Bonifacio Global City.
j. She claims that she could not be solely blamed for the breakdown of their marriage.
Nonetheless, she maintains that Miguel did not offer just and valid reasons to declare their
marriage null and void, especially because she did not participate in the psychological evaluation
of Miguel's clinical psychologist.
k. For her part, Olive maintains that their marriage remains valid and binding. However, she
prays for the dissolution of their absolute community property and that the court adjudge the
separation of their properties considering Miguel's unfaithfulness.
4.) Organize the facts
a. Miguel and Olive had been married for 15 years.
b. After their wedding on 10 September 2005, the couple moved to Olive’s family compound in
San Juan city. They occupied the third floor of the house of Olive’s Parents.
c. One year into their marriage, Miguel noticed that Olive relied heavily on her parents and left
domestic duties in the care of her parents' helpers.
d. Miguel tried to persuade Olive to live somewhere else and start their life as husband and wife
in a home separate from Olive's parents.
e. Olive refused. She argued that there was no need for them to leave since they already have
what they needed and her parents enjoyed their company. She did not want to leave them in their
senior years.
f. In one instance, while driving home, Miguel again asked Olive to move out of her parents'
house. After a heated argument, Olive got out of their car, ran to the sidewalk, and called her
father to pick her up.
g. In another instance, the couple got into an argument when Miguel suggested that they consult
a fertility doctor. This offended Olive and she accused Miguel of blaming her for not bearing any
children despite their 15-year marriage.
h. Distraught over the state of their marriage, Miguel filed a petition for annulment of marriage
citing Olive's psychological incapacity to perform her marital obligations. Attached to Miguel's
petition is the Judicial Affidavit of a clinical psychologist, attesting to the fact that Olive is
diagnosed with borderline and dependent personality disorder.
i. Olive opposed the petition stating that Miguel only wants to dissolve their marriage so he
could justify his relationship with another woman. She asserts that she hired a private
investigator to follow Miguel and she discovered that since April 2018, Miguel had been seeing a
woman in a condominium building in Bonifacio Global City.
j. She claims that she could not be solely blamed for the breakdown of their marriage.
Nonetheless, she maintains that Miguel did not offer just and valid reasons to declare their
marriage null and void, especially because she did not participate in the psychological evaluation
of Miguel's clinical psychologist.
k. For her part, Olive maintains that their marriage remains valid and binding. However, she
prays for the dissolution of their absolute community property and that the court adjudge the
separation of their properties considering Miguel's unfaithfulness.
5. Summarize the facts.
Miguel and Olive had been married for 15 years. They had been living on the third floor of the
house of Olive’s Parents. Olive relied heavily on her parents and left domestic duties in the care
of her parents' helpers. Miguel tried to persuade Olive to live separately but Olive refused. In
one instance, while driving home, Miguel again asked Olive to move out of her parents' house.
After a heated argument, Olive got out of their car, ran to the sidewalk, and called her father to
pick her up. In another instance, the couple got into an argument when Miguel suggested that
they consult a fertility doctor.
Distraught over the state of their marriage, Miguel filed a petition for annulment of marriage
citing Olive's psychological incapacity to perform her marital obligations. Olive opposed the
petition stating that Miguel only wants to dissolve their marriage so he could justify his
relationship with another woman. She claims that she could not be solely blamed for the
breakdown of their marriage. Nonetheless, she maintains that Miguel did not offer just and valid
reasons to declare their marriage null and void, especially because she did not participate in the
psychological evaluation of Miguel's clinical psychologist. For her part, Olive maintains that
their marriage remains valid and binding. However, she prays for the dissolution of their absolute
community property and that the court adjudge the separation of their properties considering
Miguel's unfaithfulness.

Applicable Laws
Article 36 of the Family Code
Article 68 of the Family Code
Applicable Jurisprudence
Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes, G.R. No. 185286, Aug. 18, 2010
The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed
with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors.
Valerio Kalaw vs. Elena Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357 January 14, 2015
In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of
marriage, the courts, which are concededly not endowed with expertise in the field of
psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform themselves on
the matter, and thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and judicious judgment.
Identification of Issues.
1. Whether or not Olive is psychologically incapacitated. – PRINCIPAL
2. Whether or not failure to comply with the essential marital obligations can be used as basis of
psychological incapacity. – SECONDARY
3. Whether or not Miguel had another relationship. – SECONDARY

Roughing out the Argument

Olive is psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations
Arguments against you Arguments in your favor Sources
1. Olive did not participate in 1. The lack of personal Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes,
the psychological evaluation examination and interview of G.R. No. 185286, Aug. 18,
of Miguel's clinical the respondent, or any other 2010
psychologist. person diagnosed with
personality disorder, does not
per se invalidate the
testimonies of the doctors.

2. Miguel did not offer just
and valid reasons to declare
their marriage null and void.
3. Miguel only wants to
dissolve their marriage so he
2. The testimony of the
doctor is sufficient to prove
that there is psychological
incapacity.
3. Olive’s fantastic ability to
invent, fabricate stories
Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes,
G.R. No. 185286, Aug. 18,
2010
Antonio vs. Reyes GR No.
155800, March 10, 2006
 could justify his relationship
with another woman.
enabled her to live in a world
of make-believe that made
her psychologically
incapacitated as it rendered
her incapable of giving
meaning and significance to
her marriage
The “psychological Article 36 of the Family Code
incapacity’’ to comply with
the essential marital
obligations of marriage is a
ground that will render the
marriage void.

WRITE-UP
Topic Sentence: Miguel petitioned for an annulment of marriage citing Olive's psychological
incapacity to perform her marital obligations.
Conclusion Statement: The marriage should be annulled. Miguel’s testimony, as well the
clinical psychologist’s report is enough ground to prove that Olive is psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties.
Rule Statement: Article 36 of the Family Code states; “A marriage contracted by any party
who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization”
Case Fact Statement: Olivia repeatedly refused to live separately with her parents and relied
heavily to them even doing basic house chores. When alleged to be psychologically
incapacitated, she created stories that Miguel is having a relationship with another woman.
Closing Statement: Marriage emancipates a person from parental authority as to person. Olive
being very dependent to her parents is a clear sign that she is incapable of consummating
marriage obligations and that she is psychologically incapacitated.
Prayer: Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays that judgement be rendered annulling the
marriage of Miguel and Olive.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
TENTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 17
CAGAYAN DE ORO, MISAMIS ORIENTAL

Miguel
Petitioner,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 121597
Olive FOR: DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
UNDER ART. 36 OF
Respondent, FAMILY CODE
x---------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:
1. That plaintiff, Miguel is of legal age, Filipino, married to respondent and a resident of
San Juan City.
2. That respondent, Olive is likewise of legal age, Filipino, married to petitioner and a
resident of San Juan City.
3. That petitioner and respondent celebrated their marriage on September 10, 2005 and
presently residing at the third floor of the house of the respondent’s parents.
4. That respondent relied heavily on her parents and left domestic duties in the care of her
parents' helpers.
5. That respondent refused to live separately from her parents.
6. That respondent argued that there was no need for them to leave since they already have
what they needed and respondent’s parents enjoyed their company and she did not want to leave
them in their senior years.
7. That respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations.

IN WITNESS WHEROF, I have affixed my signature this 20th day of December 2020 at
Tibanga, Iligan City.

Miguel
Affiant

SUBSCIBED and SWORN to before me this 20th day of December 2020, at Tibanga Iligan City.
I herby certify that I have personally examined the affiant. Vowed under penalty of law to the
whole truth of the contents.

Roy Hendrick Gaid Jr.

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
TENTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 17
CAGAYAN DE ORO, MISAMIS ORIENTAL

Miguel
Petitioner,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 121597
Olive FOR: DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
UNDER ART. 36 OF
Respondent, FAMILY CODE
x---------------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, Dr. Hendrick , of legal age, married, Filipino Citizen and with office address at Department of
Psychiatry, Iligan City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose
and state that: I am the psychiatrist engaged by the petitioner in this case to conduct the
Psychiatric Study and evaluation of the parties; In relation to the above-entitled case, the counsel
Atty. Roy at his office located at Tibanga Iligan City asked me questions which questions I
answered while I was in my clinic, fully conscious that I did so under oath and that I may face
perjury and any other criminal liability for false testimony; The questions asked by Atty. Roy
and the answers I gave are as follows, to wit:
1.Question (Q): Did you conduct psychiatric study of the parties in this case?
Answer (A): Yes sir.

2. Q: Could you tell us the manner by which you conducted your study?
A: I did the standard procedure which was to do a detailed psychiatric history and
mental status examination by psychiatric interviews with the petitioner. I also subjected
the petitioner to a battery of psychological tests. Collateral informants were interviewed. The
information gathered was then studied and collated to make a written report.
3. Q: Who were the persons that you interviewed?
A: I interviewed Mr. Orlando, the father of the Respondent.
4. Q: Were you able to interview the Defendant?
A: No sir
5. Q: What were your findings?
A: I asses that the defendant is suffering from a personality disorder
classified as Dependent Personality Disorder.
6. Q: Does this disorder affect the marriage of the defendant?
A: Yes sir.
7. Q: With regard to the disorder of the defendant, did this disorder exist before their
marriage?
A: Yes sir.
8. Q: Is this disorder incurable?
A: Yes sir.
9. Q: Are you willing to sign your statement?
A: Yes sir.
 Dr. Hendrick
PRC ID No. 121597
Issued on December 15 2007
At PRC, Manila

SUBSCIBED and SWORN to before me this 20th day of December 2020, at Tibanga Iligan City.
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the proof of identification of affiant.

ATTESTATION
I hereby state, under oath, that I faithfully recorded the questions asked and the
corresponding answers the witness gave and that neither I nor any other person present or
assisting me has coached the witnessed regarding the statement.
Atty. Roy
SUBSCIBED and SWORN to before me this 20th day of December 2020, at Tibanga Iligan City.
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the proof of identification of affiant.