Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

_ Judicial Region
Branch_, Davao City

ANGELO DELOS ANGELES, CIVIL CASE No.__

Petitioner, For Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
-versus-
ANNIE DELOS ANGELES,
Respondent.
x------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

Respondent, by counsel, respectfully states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner Angelo Delos Angeles (hereinafter “Angelo”) filed the present action for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Respondent Annie Delos Angeles (hereinafter “Annie”).
Angelo avers that their marriage was void ab initio on the grounds that his consent thereto was obtained
by fraud when Annie concealed at the time of their marriage that the child that she was bearing was not
his. Annie on the other hand rebutted Angelo’s claim saying that the present petition was only filed to
justify his abandonment and non-support to his family.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, married, with residence and postal address at 123 Nangka
Street, Davao City, where he may be served with notices and other processes of this Honorable
Court;
2. Respondent Annie delos Angeles is likewise of legal age, Filipino, married, with residence at 456
Bacalso St., Cebu City, where she may be served with summons and other processes of this
Honorable Court;
3. 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.
Attached as Annex “A” is the Certificate of Marriage;
4. Petitioner, while undergoing training in Batangas, being a member of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines came to know the respondent sometime on September 2009 through the internet and
became sweetheart sometime on April 2010 on the same platform as a government employee
based in Cebu City and this continued internet chatting, led to their first personal meeting, when
respondent went to Manila on October 18, 2010 and stayed in Batangas up to October 24, 2010,
returning to Cebu City the following day. They had their first carnal knowledge on October 18,
2010 during their overnight stay in Manila and thereafter during their stay in Batangas;
5. Petitioner never asked the respondent to go to Cebu City, it was petitioner who voluntarily went
to Cebu sometime August 2010 not because of respondent’s pregnancy but to meet the latter’s
family. At that time, respondent had no idea that she was pregnant. It was only after some weeks
or a month since petitioner arrived in Cebu City that respondent learned that she was pregnant.
Even after learning of her pregnancy, she never insisted that they have to marry being a
government employee. It was petitioner who voluntarily offered to marry her after learning of her
pregnancy;
6. Respondent have never had any other boyfriend aside from her husband who is the petitioner
herein. Both respondent and petitioner shared in the expenses for their marriage application and
celebration. In fact, since respondent was pregnant at that time and had frequent headaches, it was
petitioner who arranged their documents for the wedding and it was only when her personal
presence was needed that she would go with him to the Civil Registrar.
7. 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. Attached as Annex B is the Certification dated July 5, 2011.
8. 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, attached as Annex
C is the photocopy of the UItrasound report;
9. Respondent is sure that the child she was carrying was Petitioner’s as she never had any carnal
knowledge with anyone few months or weeks earlier than October 18, 2010.
10. Petitioner stayed for one (1) week in Cebu after the birth of the child and that his last visit to
Cebu 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 or communicated his doubts. He was even present
during the first birthday of the child on June 25, 2012. Even when parties quarrelled sometime on
December, 2012, he never mentioned nor confronted her about it.
11. 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.
12. Ever since he had married her and even when their son was already born, he had not been giving
her regular monthly support. Once in a while when she asks for support especially when the child
was hospitalized, he would just give her ONE THOUSAND PESOS.
13. It is therefore clear that the petition has no merit and was only filed by the Petitioner to justify his
abandonment and non-support to his family.
14. That because of this baseless Petition filed by Angelo, Annie has suffered emotional suffering,
sleepless nights and untold worries. She is so worried about her son who is being disowned by his
own father.
15. In addition all the essential requisites of a valid marriage is present.

ISSUES

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are presented for discussion:
1. Whether or not the petition for nullity of marriage should be outright dismissed for not being
the proper legal action.
 2. Whether or not the child enjoys the presumption of legitimacy under Article 164 of the
Family Code and for being so shall be entitled for support from his biological Father.

ARGUMENTS

1. The petition for nullity of marriage should be dismissed for not being the proper legal action.

A. All the essential requisites of a valid marriage are present in the instant case.
1. Article 2 of the Family Code provides that “No marriage shall be valid, unless these
essential requisites are present: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be
a male and a female; and (2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing
officer.
2. All of the requisites mentioned are present in the instant case.
3. It undisputed that the parties are both male and female, of legal age and thus legally
capacitated to marry. It is likewise Petitioner who voluntarily offered Respondent to
marry him thus the existence of a consent freely given is present.
4. If indeed the allegations of the petitioner are true, the correct legal action he should file is
annulment of marriage and not nullity of marriage.

B. The child enjoys the presumption of legitimacy under Article 164 of the Family Code for
being born inside a valid marriage and for being so shall be entitled for support from his
biological father which is the Petitioner herein.
1. 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.”
2. With the provision above mentioned, it was clearly established in the facts that the child
was born during the existence of a valid marriage between the parties.
3. Furthermore 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.
4. In addtion 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.
5. It is therefore clear that the petition has no merit and was only filed by the Petitioner to
justify his abandonment and non-support to his family.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully submitted and prayed that judgement
be rendered in favour of respondent and against petitioner by:
1) DISMISSING the present petition for not being the proper legal action.
2) ORDERING petitioner to pay moral damages in the amount that this Honorable Court
deems proper under the circumstances;
3) ORDERING petitioner to pay respondent’s attorneys fees of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS as acceptance fee and FIVE THOUSAND PESOS appearance fee;
4) ORDERING petitioner to pay respondent in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS as cost of litigation.
5) ORDERING petitioner that while the case is pending to pay the amount of TEN
THOUSAND PESOS per month as support pendente lite.
Other reliefs as may be relevant under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

Cebu City, February 13, 2018

ATTY. RAYMUND ABADIEZ

Counsel for Respondent
Address: Juan Luna St., Hindang, Leyte
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

Copy furnished:
ATTY. WA ELHI
Counsel for Petitioner

EXPLANATION
In view of time and restricted availability of travel due to COVID-19, the above
MEMORANDUM was served via registered mail as personal service could not be
availed of due to the strict enforcement of the Enhanced Community Quarantine.

ATTY. RAYUND ABADIEZ

Counsel for Respondent