Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Davao City
Branch 5

MICHELLE T. CRUZ-OBAC Civil Case No. 12345

Petitioner,

- versus - FOR: DECLARATION OF

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF
JAYLORD B. OBAC THE FAMILY CODE OF THE
Respondent. PHILIPPINES

X------------------------------X

COMMENT/MANIFESTATION TO PETITION FOR

DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through the Office of

the Solicitor General (OSG), as Counsel of the State, in
response to the Order of the Honorable Court dated 28 March
2022 to file Comment/Manifestation on the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by Michelle T. Cruz-
Obac, respectfully states that:

1. On 28 March, OSG received a copy of the Petition

for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage dated 24 March 2022
filed by Petitioner Michelle T. Cruz-Obac.

2. On 04 April 2022, the OSG received said Order from

the Honorable Court.

1
 3. On 11 April 2022, the OSG received the Answer
respondent Jaylord B. Obac.

4. While the additional requirement of the issuance of

Certification by this Office was dispensed with following the
implementation of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, or the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the participation of the OSG
or the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is still mandated since
the action cannot be considered as a non-public matter
between private parties, but is impressed with State interest,
the Family Code likewise requires the participation of the
State, through the prosecuting attorney, fiscal, or Solicitor
General, to take steps to prevent collusion between the
parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or
suppressed.1 Hence, this Comment/Manifestation as part of
the participation on behalf of the State.

5. The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in light of the

interpretation of psychological incapacity as a ground for
declaration of nullity of marriage in the recent Tan-Andal v.
Andal2 (2021) case is of significant importance, where the
Court held that:
Psychological incapacity is neither a mental
incapacity nor a personality disorder that
must be proven through expert opinion. There
must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring
aspects of a person's personality, called

1
Antonio v. Reyes (G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006)
2
G.R. 196359, 11 May 2021

2
 "personality structure," which manifests itself
through clear acts of dysfunctionality that
undermines the family. The spouse's personality
structure must make it impossible for him or her to
understand and, more important, to comply with his
or her essential marital obligations. (Emphasis
Ours)

6. While we recognize the Supreme Court’s

declaration in the same case that courts must not hesitate to
void marriages that are patently ill-equipped due to psychic
causes inherent in the person of the spouse3, we, in the same
vein, uphold that careful and due perusal on the facts and
circumstances of the case is still warranted.

7. To further the premise of the previous statement,

still in the same case4, the Supreme Court expressly held that
the quantum of proof required for the plaintiff-spouse is clear
and convincing evidence, requiring more than
preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable
doubt following the presumption of validity of marriage which
is firmly established in our jurisdiction. Citing Adong c.
Cheong Seng Gee5:

The basis of human society throughout

the civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage
in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it
is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance

3
Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. 196359, 11 May 2021)
4
Supra
5
G.R. No. 18081 March 3, 1922

3
 of which the public is deeply interested.
Consequently, every intendment of the law leans
toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling
together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in
the absence of any counter-presumption or
evidence special to the case, to be in fact married.
The reason is that such is the common order of
society, and if the parties were not what they thus
hold themselves out as being, they would be living
in the constant violation of decency and of law. A
presumption established by our Code of Civil
Procedure is "that a man and woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have entered into
a lawful contract of marriage." Semper præsumitur
pro matrimonio—Always presume marriage.

8. In ascertaining whether or not there is clear and

convincing evidence that would warrant us to agree with the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, we give due
significance to the Constitutional mandate as to marriage and
family. Sections 1 and 2 of Article XV of the 1987 Constitution
provides, respectively:

SECTION 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family

as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall
strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its
total development.

SECTION 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social

institution, is the foundation of the family and shall
be protected by the State. (Underscoring supplied)

4
 9. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ratiocinated that
marriages declared as nullified under Article 36 of the Family
Code should be deemed as an implement of the Constitutional
protection of marriage and that as a result, there is a
corresponding interest for the State to defend against
marriages ill-equipped to promote family life.

10. However, a fair and careful perusal of the

petitioner’s allegations, which served as the bases or
underlying premises of the conclusions of her experts, show
that these were not actually proven. Charges based on mere
speculation cannot be given credence. Moreso, several claims
of petitioner Michelle are, to the eyes of this Office, incredible,
if not, contradicting each other.

10.1. Petitioner’s claim that she is suffering Self-

Defeating Personality Disorder as revealed by Psychological
evaluations of Dr. Alpher Caingles and Dr. Merzy Balijani is
devoid of merit, the evaluation not having attached in her
Petition. That being the case and without any other evidence
to support her claims, petitioner in her complaint had
presented mere self-serving statements, which bears no
probative weight, therefore, it cannot be concluded that she
herself is psychologically incapacitated.

10.2. While we recognize that petitioner’s self esteem

may have been caused by the tragic event that resulted in her
paralysis and disability, we see no grave and serious reason

5
that makes her psychologically incapacitated to warrant the
nullity of her marriage with respondent Jaylord.

10.3. Petitioner, in her effort to prove that respondent is

psychologically incapacitated, posits that respondent refused
her sex many times. To shed light to this contention, the
Supreme Court enunciated in the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA6
that:

Senseless and protracted refusal is

equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the
prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual
intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a
sign of psychological incapacity.

Evidently, one of the essential marital

obligations under the Family Code is "To procreate
children based on the universal principle that
procreation of children through sexual cooperation
is the basic end of marriage." Constant non-
fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the
integrity or wholeness of the marriage. xxx
(Emphasis ours)

As can be gleaned, refusal must be constant, senseless

and protracted. In the case at bar, refusal of respondent
Jaylord due to exhaustion from work in order to provide the
needs of the family is valid justification for such.

6
G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997

6
 10.3. To the allegations that respondent is a “Mama’s
boy” and that he suffers Narcissistic Personality Disorder with
marked dependent features, it is worth noting that the doctor
arrived at the conclusion after interviewing Michelle and her
deposition that any such personality disorders of Jaylord have
been existing since the latter’s early years being the son of a
basketball player and at the same time governor father, and
contrastingly a fragile mother who “nearly had a nervous
breakdown,” has not been explained.

To prove this, the petitioner only provided the Diagnostic

Criteria for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder taken from the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Thereafter, enumerating events which are improbable, if not
beyond belief.

To collectively address petitioner’s narration of

circumstances to allege respondent’s psychological
incapacity, we hereby emphasize that it is downright
incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty, much less ill
will, which renders a marriage void on the ground of
psychological incapacity.7

11. Respondent presented contrary evidence refuting

the allegations of petitioner.

7
Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio (G.R. No. 171042, June 30, 2008)

7
 11.1.Respondent has consistently argued and proved
that his absence was caused by his effort to be employed
abroad in order to provide for the needs of his wife and child,
like any other Filipino father would do. Consequently, an
allegation of psychological incapacity would not hold water in
this case.

11.2. In its entirety, the contentions of respondent

clearly and convincingly evince that he has not abandoned
petitioner and their child, much more, is incapable in fulfilling
his marital obligations.

On the foregoing considerations, it is thus patently clear

that Petitioner Michelle failed to discharge the onus probandi.
For petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden
of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.

While this Office, sympathizes with her predicament on

their imperfect and quite indifferent marriage, its first and
foremost duty as the People’s Tribune is to present the
position he perceives to be in the best interest of the State,
and in this case to defend the marriage as mandated by the
Constitution, and consequently to manifest and appeal with
the Honorable Court to apply the law.

Michelle’s marriage with Jaylord may have failed then,

but it cannot be declared void ab initio on the ground of

8
psychological incapacity in light of the insufficient evidence
presented.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this

Comment/Manifestation OBJECTING the Petition of
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of the Parties herein be
NOTED and CONSIDERED.

Other forms of relief, as the Honorable Board may deem

just or equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Davao City, 13 April 2022.

ROBBY JANE D. SALVERON

Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 88000
IBP Lifetime Member No. 054321, 02-28-2020
MCLE Exemption No. VII-OSG054321, 04-01-
2020

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
VOIP Nos. (02) 8-9881-629; 8-9881-674 (loc. 724 &
725)
Telefax: (02) 8-817-9879; Email: efile@osg.gov.ph

9
 EXPLANATION

The foregoing pleading is being filed and served by

registered mail in accordance with Sections 3, 5, and 7, Rule
13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by A.M.
19-10-20-SC.

ROBBY JANE D. SALVERON

COPY FURNISHED: (By Registered Mail)

MICHELLE T. CRUZ-OBAC
Blk 4 Lot 4 Barangay Catalunan Grande
Davao City

ATTY. LESLIE M. LUCAS

Counsel for Petitioner
Blc 19, lot3, Lily St. Lavista Monte 2
Matina, Davao city

JAYLORD B. OBAC
Blk 4 Lot 5 Barangay Catalunan Grande
Davao City

ATTY. BRILLA JOY COSGAFA

Counsel for Respondent
15F Cosgafa Bldg., J.P. Laurel Avenue,
Bajada, Davao City

10