Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Malabon City
Branch 73 (FC-4)

BRENDA G. CRISTOBAL-
FERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
Civil Case No. CV-2558-MAL
-versus-
For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
LARRY V. FERNANDEZ,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF
LEO CHRISTIAN P. LUMBRE

I, LEO CHRISTIAN P. LUMBRE, 43 years old, Filipino, single and

with address at #6 Sapphire Street, Pangilinan Compound, Tandang Sora,
Quezon City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law do hereby
depose and state, that I am executing this Judicial Affidavit as witness for
the Petitioner. The person examining me is Atty. Aldrin Jose M. Cana with
office address at 118 Concha Cruz Drive, BF Homes, Parañaque City. The
questions being asked are in the English language and translated into
Filipino language, which I fully understand both language, and I am giving
my answers in the Filipino language, fully conscious that I do so under oath
and I am aware that I may face criminal liability if proven that I gave false
testimony or perjured the statements I hereunder made:

OFFER OF TESTIMONY
Your Honor, we are offering the testimony of the witness on the
following grounds: (1) to prove that he is an expert in the field of Clinical
Psychology; (2) that he was the one who conducted the psychological
examination on the petitioner; (3) to prove that after conducting a thorough
evaluation of the petitioner, it was found that she is clear of any aberration of
personality that can otherwise psychologically incapacitate her in handling
marital obligations; (4) to prove also that the result of his psychological
evaluation was that the respondent is psychologically incapacitated to
perform his marital obligations; (5) for him to identify the psychological
report he executed and (6) to prove other relevant matters in the present case.

Q1. Mr. witness, please tell the Honorable Court your educational
background.
A1. After graduating from the Philippine Women’s University, Quezon
City in the year 1998 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology, I went
 on to pursue my Graduate Studies in Human Resources Development/
Industrial Relations (MIR/HRD) at the University of the Philippines –
SOLAIR. After completing the required units in the year 2002, I went
further on to pursue graduate studies in Psychological Services MA-
PS at the Assumption College of Makati where I am likewise seeing
through my Diploma Course in Guidance and Counseling, as pursuant
to Republic Act 9258 – Licensure Examination for Guidance &
Counseling / Psychological Services.

Q2. Are you a member of any professional organization Mr. Witness?

A2. Yes, Sir. I am an Associate of the Psychological Association of the
Philippines, and the International Association of Applied Psychology.

Q3. Did you bring with you your curriculum vitae?

A3. Yes, Sir.

Q4. I’m showing a curriculum vitae of one Leo Christian Lumbre y

Puno, please tell the Court if this is your curriculum vitae.
A4. Yes, Sir. That is my curriculum vitae.

Manifestation of Atty. Cana: Your Honor, the witness has identified his
Curriculum Vitae. May we respectfully request that the same be marked as
our Exhibit “J-1”.

Q5. What cases do you usually evaluate?

A5. I handle clinical cases and conduct psychometric evaluations in the
industrial, corporate and scholastic settings, Sir. This includes
psychological evaluations of parties who seek to file a Petition for
Nullity of Marriage.

Q6. How long have you been handling cases on Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage?
A6. For the better part of nineteen years now, Sir.

Q7. On the average, how many such cases do you handle in a year?
A7. The least I handle in a month is 5 cases, or 60 in a year, Sir.

Q8. In all of these (annulment) cases, have you ever been mistaken in
your findings or opinions vis-à-vis the ruling of the presiding
judge?
A8. Save for a few instances, my findings have been upheld by the
Honorable Courts, Sir.

Q9. Do you know the Petitioner in this case?

A9. Yes, Sir. I do know her professionally.

Q10. Why do you know her?

A10. She was referred to me for psychological evaluation, Sir.

2
Q11. Were you able to conduct the Psychological Evaluation?
A11. Yes, Sir. I personally did.

Q12. For what purpose was the Psychological Evaluation?

A12. The Psychological Evaluation was conducted for the purpose of
examining the psychological functioning of both parties, Sir. The
petitioner wanted to find out if the respondent’s subjective continuity
was in fact indicative of his psychological incapacity to fulfill marital
obligations.

Q13. How did you conduct the Psychological Evaluation?

A13. Not known to the petitioner, the mental status exam or MSE was
conducted during the actual interview. While the main reason for
conducting an MSE is to assess a person’s “sensorium” or awareness
of time, place, and person/s, the process likewise serves as a means of
measuring an individual’s sincerity. After the MSE, standardized tests
were administered.

Q14. What are these tests?

A14. Other than the MSE, I administered a full-battery of psychological
exams that gauged petitioner’s emotional and psychological
functioning. I made use of the Basic Personality Inventory, Emotions
Profile Index, International Personality Disorder Examination and
Projective Techniques.

Q15. What did you find out after conducting the psychological
evaluation?
A15. I found out that Petitioner is of sound psychological functioning albeit
indications that there are a few areas of socio-emotional functioning
that are considerably wanting of improvement, Sir.

Q16. What are these areas of socio-emotional functioning that you

consider wanting of improvement, Mr. Witness?
A16. Through the psychometric evaluation and projective tests, it was
found that the petitioner manifests the following patterns that
collectively make her susceptible to being conned, manipulated or
taken advantage of by other people:

High Gregariousness High Trustfulness

Depression Above Average Timidity

Q17. Are the petitioner’s noted deficits severe enough to cause

interpersonal damages?
A17. No, Sir. Her noted socio-emotional deficits and areas of improvement
actually are clear indications that she has all the while been
susceptible to being abused by other people.

3
Q18. Are the petitioner’s socio-emotional deficits still curable?
A18. Yes, Sir. There is still a good prognosis for the petitioner’s condition,
the fact that she has no personality disorder, Sir.

Q19. What is the name of the respondent, Mr. Witness?

A19. The respondent in this case is Mr. Larry V. Fernandez, Sir.

Q20. Did you also interview the respondent?

A20. No, Sir. I did not have the privilege of interviewing and
psychometrically evaluating the respondent, albeit having formally
invited him to present himself for the said procedures, Sir.

Q21. In what manner did you invite the respondent to undergo the
psychological evaluation process, Mr. Witness?
A21. I sent him a formal letter of invitation, Sir.

Q22. What is your proof that you indeed send a formal letter of
invitation to the respondent, Mr. Witness?
A22. I have here a copy of the formal letter of invitation sent to the
respondent, and the Registry Return Card, to prove that I indeed send
the said letter.

Manifestation of Atty. Cana: Your Honor, may we request that the formal
letter of invitation as well as the Return Card be marked as our Exhibits “J-
2” and “J-3”, respectively.

Q23. Were you able to evaluate the personality make up of respondent

despite his failure to present himself for proper testing?
A23. Yes, Sir. I based it on the facts provided by the petitioner and the
secondary sources of information.

Q24. Please tell the Court your findings with respect to the Respondent.
A24. The Respondent was found to be suffering from a consistent pattern of
disregard for and violation of the rights of others, best accounted for
by Antisocial Personality Disorder, Sir.

Q25. Do you think that the petitioner had been sincere in stating her
allegations concerning the respondent?
A25. Most definitely, Sir.

Q26. How is that considering the fact that you have never evaluated the
respondent directly?
A26. Every psychological impairment, especially personality disorders, are
aggregates of consistent patterns. Every disorder has identifiable (and
sometimes unique) features or symptoms. Clinical Psychologists and
Psychiatrists are well aware of such and base their diagnosis on these
overt signs. The Petitioner, or the secondary sources of information,
are not in either fields of practice and is in fact incognito of the nature

4
 and sorts of disorders. But how accurate and consistent her allegations
were could never have been gleaned if she has never been into contact
with a person who is afflicted with Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Deceitfulness on her part, or that of the secondary sources of
information would definitely have to be ruled out, Sir.

Q27. What is the root cause of the Antisocial Personality Disorder you
have found afflicting the respondent, Mr. Witness?
A27. Faulty childhood orientation, poor upbringing, and vicarious
conditioning, interplayed to cause the development of Antisocial
Personality Disorder in the respondent, Sir. The petitioner vouched
for the fact that the respondent and his siblings have been blessed with
a markedly good-natured mother, but nonetheless proved inept to
morally guide and discipline him and his youngest brother. They both
grew up lacking direction and attuned to unhealthy proclivities,
including drinking, smoking and use of prohibited substances. The
father on the other hand supposedly did a great job conditioning the
respondent and his brother to become indulgent, irresponsible and
physically vehement the time that they came of age. The respondent’s
father has supposedly been a perennial drunkard himself, on top of
being easy-go-lucky and inordinately fond of women. Purportedly, he
has been a womanizer throughout his prime and subjected his own
spouse to physical and verbal abusiveness.

Q28. You mean to tell the Court that these sort of wayward patterns
already existed before the marriage?
A28. Yes, Sir.

Q29. How about during and after the marriage?

A29. Yes, Sir. The disorder has been deeply ingrained and pervaded during
and long after the marriage was contracted.

Q30. What characteristics does the respondent have showing that he

has Antisocial Personality Disorder?
A30. Through the disorder, the respondent consistently exhibited a
pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of the rights of others,
and found expression in a variety of contexts as indicated by the
following:
 Impulsivity and failure to plan ahead;
 Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by his typical
boorishness towards the petitioner, emotional volatility, penchant
for exuding verbal, physical and sexual vehemence;
 Reckless disregard for his safety, that of his own spouse and son;
 Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by his indifference to the
needs and concerns of his wife and child, financial recklessness
and ineptness to honor financial obligations;

5
  Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to and
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, exploited, and deprived the
spouse and son.

Q31. Is the respondent’s noted personality disorder serious, Mr.

Witness?
A31. Yes, Sir. It is serious, the fact that the afflicted is prone to causing
interpersonal damages, including towards the spouse and other
significant figures. He has likewise been indifferent to the needs and
sentiments of his own child, especially after the separation.

Q32. In what way is it serious, Mr. Witness?

A32. As narrated by the petitioner as well as the secondary sources of
information, the respondent has been arrogant and ineffectual in
tolerating individual differences. He threw his weight around, and
often abused the petitioner emotionally, mentally, financially, and
physically, even as she ripened with child. He likewise became
completely attuned to unhealthy proclivities, including gambling and
use of prohibited substances. His vehemence got even worse since he
became hooked on drugs, and these ultimately caused the decadence
of their marriage. He never evinced capacity for remorse, and clearly
went on with the cohabitation, if only to benefit from the functional
and procreative worth of the petitioner. The condition is serious, due
to the interpersonal abusiveness and lack of empathy associated with
it, Sir.

Q33. I read in your report that the person suffering from a personality
aberration such as the one afflicting the respondent cannot be
treated because they themselves are oblivious of their condition.
What can you say about that?
A33. It is indeed an incurable condition, Sir, besides being serious enough
to be interpersonally damaging. There is no known cure or mode of
therapy that can treat the respondent’s condition, the fact that they
naturally Lack Capacity for Remorse, and therefore unable to see the
need to improve on themselves for the sake of other people. He
would rather justify his actions, including those that directly violated
the rights of others, instead of accepting that there are things to work
out on in himself.

Q34. How did this psychological incapacity characterized by

incurability, severity and juridical antecedents affect this
relationship with the petitioner?
A34. Given the pervasiveness of the respondent’s personality aberration, he
cannot live up to his share of interpersonal obligations, especially as
part of a marriage or family, as he is too consumed by selfish strivings
and lack of remorse.

Q35. This petition was filed pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code
grounded on psychological incapacity. Now, what are the essential

6
 obligations of marriage that were not complied with by the
respondent because of that psychological incapacity?
A35. The respondent has not been able to observe mutual love, respect, and
support to the petitioner. He also failed to jointly support the
legitimate daughter, and has committed acts that brought danger,
dishonor and injury to the latter.

Q36. Are these non-compliance due to just a mere failure, or just

neglect or essential obligations of marriage which you just
mentioned a while ago?
A36. The respondent was found to be psychologically incapacitated to live
up to his share of marital obligations, and not merely remiss of his
duties as a spouse and parent.

Q37. You mentioned that you came up with a written report on your
findings, did you bring it with you?
A37. Yes, I have here the Psychological Evaluation Report, Sir.

Manifestation Atty. Cana: Your Honor, the witness has presented a

Psychological Evaluation Report which we would like to request to be
marked as our Exhibit “H”.

Q38. Mr. witness, on the last page of this Psychological Evaluation

Report, there appears a signature on top of the name Leo
Christian Lumbre, please tell the Court whose signature this is.
A38. That is my signature, Sir.

Manifestation Atty. Cana: Your Honor, the witness has identified a

signature above the name of one Leo Christian P. Lumbre on the
Psychological Evaluation Report, we would like to request that the same be
marked as our Exhibit “H-1”.

Q39. Mr. witness, can you please tell us what was your
recommendation on your Psychological Evaluation Report?
A39. Considering that respondent has forced petitioner to the gutters, the
nullity of the parties’ marriage is highly recommended in order for
petitioner to start anew and put back her life together.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this ___th day of November, 2019, in Quezon City, Philippines.

LEO CHRISTIAN P. LUMBRE. M.A.P.S., C.A.S.P., RPsy

Affiant

7
 BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in and for __________ City, this ___th
day of November, 2019, personally appeared LEO CHRISTIAN P.
LUMBRE. M.A.P.S, C.A.S.P., RPsy, who has satisfactorily proven to be
his identity through his Tax Identification No. 201-114-070-000 issued
March 09, 2000, that he is the same person who executed and voluntarily
signed the foregoing Judicial Affidavit which he acknowledged before me as
his own free and voluntary act and deed.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2019.

8
 ATTESTATION CLAUSE OF COUNSEL

I, ATTY. ALDRIN JOSE M. CANA, of legal age, Filipino, and with

office address at 118 Concha Cruz Drive BF Homes Paraň aque City,
Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with the law do hereby
depose and state that:

1. I am the counsel for petitioner BRENDA G. CRISTOBAL -

FERNANDEZ in connection with the case docketed as Civil Case No.
2558-MAL, entitled “Brenda G. Cristobal-Fernandez v. Larry V.
Fernandez” and pending before the Regional Trial Court of the City of
Malabon City, Branch 73 (FC-4), and I conducted and supervised the
examination of Leo Christian P. Lumbre, M.A.P.S., C.A.S.P., RPsy as a
witness in the above-captioned case;

2. I faithfully recorded the questions I asked to and the

corresponding answers he gave me.

3. I have not, nor any other person then present or assisting

coached the witness regarding the latter’s answers; and

4. I fully understand that any false attestation shall subject me to

disciplinary action, including disbarment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this ___th day of November, 2019, Philippines.

_______________________________
ATTY. ALDRIN JOSE M. CANA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __th September

2019 at _______ City, affiant exhibiting to me her competent evidence of
identity: _______________________, bearing her photograph and signature.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2019.

9
Copy furnished:

The Office of the Solicitor General

#134 Amorsolo Street,
Legaspi Village, Makati City

Office of the City Prosecutor

_________ City

10