Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Sixth Judicial Region ________ Branch __ ABC,

Petitioner,
versus Civil Case No. ____________ FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

XYZ,

Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

COMES NOW the petitioner through counsel and to this Honorable Court most respectfully states: Nature of the Case 1. This is a petition to declare a marriage null and void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. Petitioner prays that her marriage to respondent be declared null and void on account of their respective psychological incapacities dependent personality on the part of petitioner, and avoidant personality disorder on the part of respondent which are grave, incurable, and existed prior to their marriage, and which make them unable to comprehend their marital obligations to each other. Summary of Proceedings 2. In a petition dated October 1, 2010 filed on October 4, 2010, petitioner alleged that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations, and prayed that for the nullification of their marriage. The Solicitor General was furnished a copy thereof by registered mail on October 5, 2010; he received the same on October 11, 2010, as evidenced by the Return Card, the original of which is attached to petitioners Manifestation dated November 11, 2010. The Solicitor General entered his appearance per Notice of Appearance dated

2 November 5, 2010, and manifested that he had deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor of ________ to appear in his behalf. Respondent was personally served with summons and a copy of the Petition on November 17, 2010, as evidenced by his signature on the Summons dated October 4, 2010, which is attached to the Sheriffs Return of Service dated November 19, 2010. Due to the failure of respondent to file his Answer within fifteen (15) days from service of summons, this Honorable Court, in an Order dated December 9, 2010, directed Prosecutor Rose to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties, and to submit her report thereon. In her Compliance dated March 17, 2011, Prosecutor Rose manifested that there is no evidence pointing to collusion between the parties. 3. Petitioner moved to amend her petition to allege that both she and respondent, and not just the latter, are psychologically incapacitated to comply with their marital obligations. Her motion was granted per Order dated May 9, 2011. The Amended Petition was filed on May 11, 2012 and a copy furnished to the Solicitor General by registered mail on the same day. The Amended Petition was received by the Solicitor General on May 17, 2011, as evidenced by the Return Card, the original of which is attached to petitioners Manifestation dated June 17, 2011. A copy thereof was also personally served on Prosecutor Rose on May 11, 2011, as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service dated May 11, 2011 attached to the petitioners Manifestation dated May 12, 2011. The Amended Petition was admitted per Order dated May 13, 2011. 4. Respondent was personally served with summons and a copy of the Amended Petition on May 18, 2011, as evidenced by his signature on the Summons dated May 13, 2011, which is attached to the Sheriffs Return of Service dated May 20, 2011. 5. Per Order dated June 17, 2011 the pre-trial was set on July 11, 2011 in view of respondents failure to file his Answer to the Amended Petition, and the report previously submitted by Prosecutor Rose that there is no evidence pointing to collusion between the parties.

3 The Pre-Trial Order dated July 11, 2011 set the initial trial date for August 8, 2011 and summarized the issues as follows:
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. 2. Whether or not the respondents psychological incapacity is grave, incurable and existed before he marriage to petitioner, and 3. Whether or not the marriage of the parties should be declared void ab initio as a consequence of the foregoing.

Petitioners motion to amend the pre-trial order to conform to the amended petition was granted per Order dated August 8, 2011. 6. Petitioner testified on August 8, 2011 as to the circumstances of her marriage with respondent. Specifically, about the manifestations of their respective psychological incapacities and how they failed to understand and to comply with their essential marital obligations to each other. She identified and explained her Sworn Statement (Exh. E), which constituted her direct testimony. Her second witness Eduardo testified on September 19, 2011. He was respondents direct superior at _______ where petitioner also worked, and he knew the parties long before they got married. He testified about his observations of the parties behavior and interaction with each other and other persons at work and other settings. He identified and explained his Sworn Statement (Exh. G), which constituted his direct testimony. Petitioners third witness was her close friend Karen who testified on November 11, 2011. She was the parties classmate at their course at ______ and whose late father was a close friend of respondents father, and she knew the parties long before they got married. She testified about her observations of the parties behavior and interaction with each other and other persons in school and in other settings. She identified and explained her Sworn Statement (Exh. F), which constituted her direct testimony. The last witness for petitioner was the psychiatrist Dr. D, who testified on January 30, 2012 about her examination of the parties and her interviews of

4 informants, explained the root cause of the parties respective psyc hological incapacity, how these existed prior to their marriage, and how respondents Avoidant Personality Disorder is grave and incurable. She identified her Rsum (Exh. C) and her Psychiatric Report (Exh. D) which summarized her findings, and explained the same. Petitioner and her witnesses were duly cross-examined by the State. 7. On February 2, 2012 petitioner filed her Formal Offer of Exhibits, after personally serving a copy thereof on Prosecutor Rose, and serving a copy by registered mail on the Solicitor General. Petitioners exhibits are as follows:
A B C D and D-1 E to E-2 F to F-2 G to G-2 Amended Petition dated May 11, 2011 Marriage contract of the parties Rsum of Dr. D Psychiatric Report of Dr. D Sworn Statement of petitioner Sworn Statement of Karen Sworn Statement of Eduardo

Petitioners exhibits were admitted without objection, per Order dated February 24, 2012. 8. Reception of evidence for the state was set on April 16, 2012 and subpoena was issued to respondent at his last known address, where he had personally received summons on the Petition and Amended Petition on November 17, 2010 and May 18, 2011, respectively. On April 16, 2012 the reception of evidence for the State was reset to May 28, 2012. This was further reset to July 20, 2012. Petitioner, with leave of court, caused the publication of a Notice of Hearing dated May 28, 2012 addressed to respondent, informing him that this case will be set for hearing on July 20, 2012. The Notice was published in the June 7-13, 2012 issue of ________ , a newspaper of general circulation in the Visayas and Metro Manila. On July 20, 2012 the reception of evidence for the State was reset on August 10, 2012. During the hearing on August 10, 2012, Prosecutor Rose manifested that the respondent, despite summons, has failed to appear, and thus manifested that the State could not present controverting evidence. Thus petitioner was given twenty-five (25)

5 days or until September 4, 2012 to file her Memorandum. On August 30, 2012 petitioner served and filed her Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum dated August 30, 2012, praying for an additional 15 days from September 4, 2012 or until September 19, 2012 to file the instant Memorandum. Argument As summarized during the pre-trial, the three issues under consideration are as follows: I. THE PARTIES ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE II. THE PARTIES RESPECTIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITIES ARE GRAVE, INCURABLE, AND EXISTED BEFORE THEIR MARRIAGE III. THE MARRIAGE OF THE PARTIES IS VOID AB INITIO AND SHOULD BE DECLARED AS SUCH AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITIES Discussion 9. In Aurelio v. Aurelio (GR No. 175367, June 6, 2011), the Supreme Court summarized the Molina Guidelines as follows:
In Republic v. Court of Appeals, this Court created the Molina guidelines to aid the courts in the disposition of cases involving psychological incapacity, to wit: (1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife, as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision. (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

6
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. This Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10, has modified the above pronouncements, particularly Section 2(d) thereof, stating that the certification of the Solicitor General required in the Molina case is dispensed with to avoid delay. Still, Article 48 of the Family Code mandates that the appearance of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned be on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.

Petitioner submits that she has complied with the Molina Guidelines (except for the seventh guideline which is inapplicable, as the marriage of the parties has not yet been annulled by the Catholic Church), and proved that their marriage should be declared null and void because respondent has an Avoidant Personality Disorder while she has a Dependent Personality, that their psychological conditions antedate their marriage, and that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations, because his Avoidant Personality Disorder is grave, serious, and incurable. The parties maladies are so grave and so permanent as to deprive them of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond they assumed. 10. First, petitioner successfully discharged her burden to prove that she and the respondent are both psychologically incapacitated to comply with their essential marital obligations. Apart from her own testimony, she presented two witnesses who personally know her and respondent, who corroborated her allegations on respondents behavior at school, work, and in social situations. She also presented Dr. D, an expert witness from the field of psychology who testified that the aberrant avoidant behavior of respondent, and petitioners own dependent personality, are tantamount to psychological incapacity. While Dr. D was able to interview the respondent only once, this will not invalidate her finding that respondent has an Avoidant Personality Disorder. She had basis to consider the information from him sufficient enough to confirm the facts given

7 to her by petitioner and her collateral informants. One, personal examination of the subject spouse by the physician is not required for the said spouse to be declared psychologically incapacitated (Te v. Te, GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009), especially if he refused to submit himself to examination (Marcos v. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755, 761-762, 764 [2000]). Respondents personality disorder was the very reason why Dr. D was unable to conduct a prolonged examination of him:
A Yes, the petitioner was intelligent, shes perceptive and when I interviewed the respondent there was really a difficulty to obtain information because of the avoidant personality, [s]he was monosyllabic, [s]he could answer only with a yes or no, only one word. [S]he had a distant way of interacting and [s]he would give short responses and direct to the point. Its really difficult to obtain elaborations on [him] or in [his] history and about the marriage. You were able to interview XYZ personally? Thru the phone your Honor he refused to come to ________ since they separated he never lifted a finger to contact or go to ___________ to get the wife and then when I called him up just thru the efforts of having his cellphone number from the friends and the boss rather than from himself who wanted to reconcile. So you actually did not release the idea of being evaluated was he aware that he was being evaluated for purposes of annulment? Yes I told him that this is for the annulment and he said he will do anything that they reconcile and the reason why he answered my text message and called me up was because he wanted to find out if there is still a chance that his wife will go back to him. So he was actually talking that there was a reconciliation? Yes, your Honor his very words were What will I sacrifice or do to get her back Im willing to do everything to fix the marriage or loose my job relocate or anything to get her back but the wife never contacted him anymore and cut off the communication and went home to ______ and it was also his personality disorder that made him not to pursue or lift a finger to pursue her or get her back even with all these wishes that he had and desire to get the wife back. So do you think that he was telling the truth he told you that he wanted to do anything to reconcile with his wife? He is actually your Honor very true and honest in what he told me its just that part of his avoidant personality could not allow him to do the acts or the behaviors to actualize what he is thinking or what he desires. (TSN, January 30, 2012, pp. 11, 15, emphasis ours)

x-x-x Q A

Q A

Q A

Q A

Two, while Dr. Ds conclusion of respondents psychological incapacity hinged heavily on her own acceptance of petitioners version as the true set of f acts, this does not make petitioners testimony self-serving or hearsay. Marriage, by its very definition,
necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other.

8 To paraphrase Reyes v. Reyes (GR No. 185286, August 18, 2010), petitioner certainly had, during her cohabitation with respondent, observed him and interacted with him. Thus she was able to experience his pattern of behavior which she could then validly relay to Dr. D. Moreover, the assessment of Dr. D was not based solely on the statements of petitioner, but also on the observations of Eduardo, Karen, and petitioners mother, who all know respondent, and testified on their own o bservations of his behavior and interactions with them. Lastly, respondent will not have personal knowledge of his psychological incapacity which Dr. D could have elicited from him, even if she was able to conduct a prolonged examination of him. Three, the psychiatrists lack of personal examination of respondent and her reliance on petitioners version of events will not invalidate her findings that respondent is psychologically incapacitated, since petitioner also testified in court on the facts upon which the psychiatric report was based, which testimony was corroborated in its material points by the testimony of other persons who also know respondent. Moreover, Dr. D also testified in court to elaborate on her report and to fully explain the link between the manifestations of respondents psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. When a witness testified under oath before the lower court and was cross-examined, she thereby presented evidence in the form of testimony. Significantly, petitioners narration of facts was corroborated in material points by the testimony of persons who personally know respondent. (Azcueta v. Republic, 588 SCRA 197, 208-209 [2009]) 11. Second, the root causes of the parties respective psychological incapacities were medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by the expert Dr. D, who executed her psychiatric report and testified to explain her findings, and these were duly alleged in the Amended Petition (Exh. A) which stated that: Petitioner and respondent were married on ___________ at ___________, which marriage was registered in the Office of the Civil Registrar of __________ under Registry No. ________ (Exh. B);

9 Petitioner has been a resident of ______ for at least six months prior to the filing of the Petition and Amended Petition; Both she and the respondent are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage, that such incapacity became manifest only after the solemnization of their marriage, and that these are grave and incurable; Dr. D conducted a psychiatric evaluation on both parties, found that respondent has Avoidant Personality Disorder while the petitioner has a Dependent Personality, discussed the root causes of the parties respective psychological incapacity, found the same to be grave, serious, and incurable, reduced her findings into writing ( Exh. D), and submitted a Rsum of her qualifications (Exh. C); Respondents Avoidant Personality Disorder, which is a pervasive pat tern of social discomfort, fear of negative evaluation, and timidity, is rooted in his feelings of inadequacy since he is by nature very timid, introverted, and avoidant, with a significant pattern of social withdrawal, which makes him incapable of complying with his essential marital obligations out of fear that petitioner will reject of belittle him. His Avoidant Personality Disorder causes him to avoid any responsibility, as a way of avoiding rejection and negative evaluation. Among the examples of respondents disordered personality are the following:
a) Contrary to petitioners expectations, that as newlyweds she and respondent would consummate their marriage on their wedding night, they failed to do so due to respondents lack of interest; b) Respondent was very averse to having sexual intercourse with the petitioner, so much so that throughout their four years of married life they had sexual intercourse less than 10 times; c) Although respondent alleged that he wanted to have children, he always claimed that he was tired and did not feel like it whenever petitioner asked him to have sex; d) When petitioner would ask respondent about his opinion on matters of mutual concern, he was always disinterested and would answer that he will agree to whatever petitioner would decide; e) Even though the parties were already married to each other, respondent rarely, if ever, included petitioner or solicited her opinion in planning his activities; f) Respondent never brought petitioner to his familys residence to visit his parents even though they lived only a few kilometers away from them; g) Respondent was very averse to visiting petitioners family and relatives or to have anything to do with them; h) Respondent did not trust petitioner with financial matters and never left her

10
any money for safekeeping; he did not want to maintain a joint account.

On the part of petitioner, the root cause of her Dependent Personality is her having a controlling and over-involved mother which made her dread abandonment. She feels lost in the absence of a strong figure in her life and constantly needs her mothers approval as to her friends, job, and husband. While she was strongly against her mothers control and meticulous discipline, she always hungered for her mothers attention. Her Dependent Personality contributed to the failure of her marriage as she was unable to make any decisions in life without first ensuring her mothers approval. Thus she decided to have a relationship with, and eventually married respondent mainly because she knew he would be acceptable to her mother. 12. Third, petitioner has established juridical antecedence, i.e. the parties respective psychological incapacities clearly existed even before their marriage. In her Sworn Statement (Exh. E), petitioner stated that the respondent had a reputation of being not normal when they were still classmates but she just dismissed this; and that they became a couple mostly through her influence and prodding because respondent did not know how to court a girl. Petitioners first witness Eduardo, in his Sworn Statement (Exh. G) stated that he knew both petitioner and respondent well as they were business colleagues at ___ Corp. who eventually became his friends even before the parties got married; respondent was his subordinate and that it was very difficult to make friends with him as he kept too much to himself and participates in activities only when absolutely necessary; it took respondent forever to solve people issues; when respondent disagrees with someone he will not say anything but will just stop acting on the matter at hand; in solving operational issues at work, respondent does not take a position; respondent was unable to make decisions on many things, and many times he allowed people to carry him with their decisions and actions; there was very little communication going on between petitioner and respondent such that they were more like colleagues rather than a couple; the parties relationship was not working even

11 before they got married; the parties entered into marriage without really appreciating the need of having a relationship. Eduardo elaborated:
I noticed that their relationship was not working, even before they got married. I saw XYZ as very detached from many of the things happening around him, in both business and on a personal level, as compared to ABC who seem highly absorbed in achieving whatever it is she wants to achieve, even at times not seeing relationships as they really are. I saw XYZ as unable to make decisions on many things, many times allowing people to carry him with their own decisions and actions. While ABC moved too fast, especially on an emotional level probably neglecting to see the real nature of the relationship she was entering. In effect, I saw two people who were entering marriage without really appreciating the need of having a relationship. Their relationship was built too much on the idea of marriage for ABC, while I felt XYZ never really made any decision at all, nor accept the responsibilities attendant to the marriage. Early during their marriage, and during the times I saw them as a married couple, I felt the strain of their relationship. I saw they were having an uphill relationship, based on a very weak foundation, especially the lack of real decisions, and therefore the complete absence of commitment by XYZ . On the other hand, I saw ABC focused on the act of getting married, rather than on the person. I felt they were both hostages of the marriage, rather than willing participants. He, for his lack of decision and hence seeming lack of responsibleness, and her for ideas of marriage. x-x-x We were all looking forward to their wedding, and I thought then that they must really love each other considering their differences in attitude and outlook, or they must know very little about each other or themselves. x-x-x Yes. I just thought they were both too young or at least I felt they did not know each other well enough. x-x-x At first ABC accepted it, quietly and uncomplaining. I saw she wanted to hang on to her ideas of marriage. Then she would talk about it and the emotional difficulties it brought her. x-x-x I felt XYZ was taking the problem for granted or he just did not understand fully the situation he was in. (Exh. G, pars, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, emphasis ours)

Eduardo affirmed and confirmed the contents of his Sworn Statement when he testified on September 19, 2011 (TSN, September 19, 2011, p. 6); affirmed that he knew the parties before they got married and had some idea that they have different personalities; he was able to interact with the parties outside of their working environment by having lunch with them at least once a week to talk about life and family; and he suspected that the parties had some difficulty with each other (Id., pp. 10, 13). Upon clarificatory questions from the Honorable Court, Eduardo testified:
Q A Would you say that XYZ concept of marriage is totally different from what ABC outlook of marriage? At that time, Your Honor, because when I work with XYZ is not a type of

12
person who make a decision. I find him so very intelligent but I find his decision are always postponed or it is never made and he is very good in marketing and he is so very convincing. So at that time I was just advising them so that they be both very sure. This is my opinion, I thought ABC was looking at marriage as a good idea because she wanted to be with XYZ and I thought XYZ was being brought into it. Because I never saw him with a girl or really wanting to be with the girl and I was even surprised that when they were together. While ABC is out going XYZ has a more passive behavior? As what I have observed is that they were not going to get married because of each other but they just wanted to get married. So I said it was the wrong reason for being married. So that is why I talked to them but I did not only once but I just gave my true sense word. ( TSN, Sept. 19, 2011, pp. 13-14, emphasis ours)

Q A

Petitioners second witness Karen, in her Sworn Statement (Exh. F) stated that she personally knows the parties as they were her classmates when they took their _____ at _________ or before the parties got married; she and petitioner were the maids-of-honor at each others weddings; respondents father was a close friend of her late father; she is familiar with the parties relation ship; the parties did not seem like a happy couple as she did not see any sign of closeness; their common friends also noticed the distance between the parties; there were many occasions when she and her husband would be in the same social gatherings as the parties and even took vacations to Boracay together; respondent is very shy, quiet, and likes to keep to himself; on one of the petitioners birthdays, they went out with their classmates and having fun but respondent was fast asleep on one of the chairs; she was very much taken by surprise when she learned that the parties had become a couple. Karen affirmed and confirmed the contents of her Sworn Statement when she testified on November 11, 2011 (TSN, November 11, 2011, p. 7); affirmed that she knew the parties in the year 1999 or before they got married; there were many occasions that she and the parties were in the same social gatherings; when she and her husband went out with petitioner and respondent, the petitioner would stay with her and her husband while respondent would go somewhere else; petitioner was very disappointed when respondent slept during her birthday party; the parties did not do things as a couple (Id., p. 12, 14). Petitioners last witness Dr. D, who was acknowledged by the State to be an

13 expert witness in the field of psychiatry, particularly in the determination of the existence of psychological incapacity (TSN, January 30, 2012, pp. 3, 4), examined the parties respective backgrounds and marital history, was able to medically and clinically identify the root cause of their psychological incapacities: on the part of respondent, his Avoidant Personality Disorder emanated from his family background/upbringing, while petitioners Dependent Personality arose out of her relationship wit h her mother, determined that these existed prior to their marriage, and that these are grave, serious, and incurable. Dr. D narrated in her Psychiatric Report (Exh. D):
Petitioner: ABC is the 2nd of 3 siblings and the only female. She came from a conservative family. Her father retired early from his job as a corporate lawyer. He went back to the province and became a fish pond owner. Later, he stopped working because he became depressed and resorted to drinking alcohol. His father-in-law used to criticize him for not doing anything productive. He told ABC and other siblings what their father neglected doing and compared him with his rich sonsin-law. He was generally soft-spoken, not raised his voice to his wife, subservient to her and was a people person. He died of liver cancer in 2001. The children resented their grandfather for this and why their mother did not do anything about it. They believed that their mother raised them too well so that they would not be weak like their father. Her mother was described as controlling and meddling. She was the disciplinarian in the family. She did not show her weak side. She was meticulous and she gave out schedules and rules for all the children to follow, like, the way the toilet bowl should be flushed, toothpaste cover pointed out, bathing time, etc. She later became the bread winner. She did double jobs at the airline and with the insurance. She was a workaholic. Her mothers family was close, as each consulted the other, like some kind of a family council. She deprived ABC of having fun going out during teenage years. ABC held back from her mother any information about her relationships, especially if the guy was not within her social background. She went ahead having a boyfriend behind her back. ABCs elder brother was a ____________ working in ________ and was somewhat spared of their mothers ways. The youngest was a ________ who did nothing but obeyed their mother. He could not cope well and not able to make decisions for himself. With ABC, she called her up daily even when she was only in _________. She was happy that ABC did well and that after all, she did not raise weak kids. When her mother knew of her marital situation, she told her to be strong, stop crying and overcome feeling weak. She tried to be strong like her mother. They have no child out of this marriage. x-x-x ABC was born in ________ but grew up in ___________ after the family moved there when she was only one year old. As a child she was active, smart and bubbly. She grew up close to her nanny who was entrusted the care of the three siblings. She mostly opened up to her. Her brothers were also close to the nanny. They all ran to her for anything they needed. ABC was in the honor roll during elementary. She transferred to the city and studied in an exclusive catholic school for girls. In high school, she had average grades but met a problem with her mother over a relationship with a boyfriend. Her mother threw

14
angry words at her and controlled her that led her to rebel. Then ABC was sent to ____________ to stop the relationship. She took up ___________ in ___________ and graduated cum laude. After 6 years, ABC went back to ____________. She continued to go to school and finished a ___________. She was in the top twenty of her class despite coming from a different course. ABC experienced deep sorrow when her nanny was murdered and her father died. She felt that people she loved seemed to die on her. However, her art and paintings helped her express these feelings. Art gave her real happiness but her mother did not view it as important. She worked at a __________ for two years. After __________, she worked at ________ for 7 years. She was liked by her boss and excelled in her work. When she resigned in 2007, she was then AVP in sales and marketing. Thereafter, she owned a bazaar and was a part time consultant. She lived in _________ for 12 years. When she separated from XYZ in 2009, she worked in _____________. ABC was a non-smoker and a non-drinker. She had few friends whom she considered as her real friends. She opened up her problems to them. She liked the night life but similar to her teenage years, she still was not allowed to go out at night. She did go out occasionally but had no friends to be with, as her friends got married and had families. ABC also did not make any enemies in school and at work. She had many suitors. ABC had around ten boyfriends. Only three of them were socially acceptable to her family, which is her number one concern in her relationship with a guy. She had a two-year serious relationship when she was in 4th year high school but had to detach from him because of her fight with her mother over this. In her other relationship, she cried a lot for this guy because he had another girl and caught them in the act. Another re lationship was painful as well because the guy chose his girlfriend over ABC who was then the third party. Her past relationships were all traumatic to her. Finally, she had XYZ for a boyfriend whom she eventually married. He was acceptable to her family. For them, he was capable of raising a family. He was also intelligent, decent and had a good job. x-x-x Respondent: XYZ was the 2nd of 3 siblings. He was the only male sibling. His parents were professionals. He was close to his mother. His parents did not meddle in his life and let him be. His siblings were also doing well in their careers. x-x-x XYZ was delivered in a hospital. He grew up in __________ and later lived in ___________. He went to school during elementary in _____________. He then went to ______________. He finished a course in ____________. XYZ met no academic problems in his studies. He did not get involved in sports or any extracurricular activities. He mainly liked solitary activities: jogging and running alone, taking nature trips and hiking by himself. XYZ did one job at a time and was not known to do multi-tasking. He was employed as a logistics manager then promoted as a senior manager, after which he resigned. At that time, ABC was promoted first as they worked in the same company. He transferred to __________and tried work at a call center for two months. He currently is connected with a construction company. He was observed by his boss as quiet but intelligent, focused on his work but a poor communicator, an introvert, as if he was not part of the company and with poor peoples skills. He could not say what he meant even when he knew what to tell. He did not smoke or drink. His friends were mostly from his high school and met them once a year during the batch Christmas party. ABC was his first girlfriend. He had no experience with women. During marriage, he has no social life. He read at home, watched television or went alone to his parents place on weekends. At present, even when separated, XYZ continues to live in a condominium, which he bought for them. x-x-x Marital History: In 1999, ABC was introduced to him at school. She had her own set of friends

15
while he was a loner. They became group mates in ______________. She noted him as withdrawn and kind of strange. ABC met him again at work at _________. She initiated the friendship. They became friends. But XYZ was generally passive such that she found means for them to be close. She put a lot of efforts so that they went on dates. During that time, he did not say he loved her. But since she was approachable, he did not have a difficult time to start a relationship with her. If together inside the car, she had to initiate the talk. They became steadies in 2003. XYZ was intimidated by her, her family and friends. He was fidgety and anxious when with them. On the other hand, her family approved of him for ABC. She loved and respected him. Also, he did not have the tendency to leave her for another, unlike her previous relationships. At this point, she felt he was the right person for her, as she needed a partner who will give her peace of mind and sense of security. However, he did not lift a finger to arrange for the pamanhikan such that ABC had to do it because it was the norm in her side. He also did not think that it was important for her to meet his family. She had to tell him that it is what is proper. They were married in _________ in __________. They did not go on a honeymoon. During marriage, she had not gone inside his house. She was never invited there, although, it was only 5 minutes away from her place. She met his family thrice only: at the pamanhikan, during the wedding and at his sisters wedding. She became unhappy of his behavior. She noted that he did things only to please her and that he needed to stabilize himself but he was not happy for himself at all. When they were inside their place together, it became a heavy atmosphere for ABC. He seemed uncomfortable with her presence and did not make any conversation with her. She dominated the decisions on where they will go or what topic to talk about. ABC realized that she really wanted to get married, have a husband and kids. But she wanted to be loved and nurtured, at the same time, shown and told to her. ABC applied to migrate to ____________ but after a year of planning, waste of time and energy, she did not pursue it because he was passive about it. When at work and ABC called, he would drop the phone, as he could only focus on one task at a time. He did not like to talk about sex while ABC joked about it. They did not have a regular sex life together. Later, ABC wanted to have a baby. She got a schedule for them to see a doctor but he refused because he was not yet prepared. ABC tried hard to adjust to his ways. She took care that he dressed well, for she was fashionable. She kept opening up to him for years during their marriage but he could not respond to what she expected. He continued to jog or hike alone and see his parents alone. They had no team work. He had his own money while she had hers. It became clear to her that she was happier when alone. In July 2009, she left the condominium. Thereafter, she went home to _________. She felt lighter and joyous. (emphasis ours)

In her psychiatric report (Exh. D), Dr. D identified the psychological tests she administered on the parties which led her to determine their respective psychological disorders which render them psychologically incapacitated to discharge their marital obligations, and that their disordered personalities are rooted on certain causes antedating their marriage:
Mental Status Examination: Petitioner: ABC appeared as a well kempt, slim, fair-skinned female with medium height, dressed in trendy get-up, in her early thirties. She had good eye contact with euphoric effect. She was behaved, with coherent and relevant responses and able to elaborate when queried. Memory was noted to be good. Intellectual

16
functions were intact. She was oriented to time, place and person. She had accurate account of the events related to her marital life. She had fair judgment and insight. ABC verbalized that she felt sad and pitied her husband however she could not force herself to stay in this marriage. She wanted to feel peace and contentment. Family and communication did not hold them together. He never discussed his salary with her. She mostly dominated him. She abhorred telling him how she wanted him to behave towards her, since it should come from him. She now went out frequently till early morning and with those ten years younger than her. She could not do what her friends did, as she was too afraid of her mother and obedient towards her. She never answered back. With XYZ, her mother had a high degree of acceptance of him. This seal of approval made her feel that her mother supported her decision. Even in school, choice of friends and type of work, her mother should give the approval. Finally, she realized that she needed a husband to get her away from her mother. Then during the separation, she went home even when in the past, there was nothing in _______ that could make her go back and live with her mother again. ABC described herself as creative but her being an artist did not make her family proud of her since she was not at par with her cousins. She felt grateful to her mother such that she have good grades and good work record to satisfy her. She described XYZ as afraid of the unknown but preferred to go off on his own, no social skill, intimidated by her family and did not trust her with money. ABC blamed herself why she made the effort to have him yet the marriage did not succeed. She felt that the decisions she made were all to make her mother happy. She felt suffocated by her mothers blaming but she realized that the mistakes she made were because she considered her mother first. Her mother was not aware that she was part of the problem. She plans to enroll in an art institute, go abroad because she felt comfortable with her western upbringing, and to have a relationship again that will make her happy this time. Respondent: He claimed that he was willing to fix the marriage but it was she who was not for it. He further enumerated that he would sacrifice his job, relocate, or do anything to get her back. He admitted feeling pained and was not sure what he would be doing, but maybe, he claimed that he would learn to accept their separation and move on. x-x-x RESULTS of the Evaluation Evaluation Procedure: The psychiatric clinical interview included gathering data regarding the presence of medical and psychiatric disorders, the personal history-prenatal and perinatal, early, middle and late childhood through puberty and adolescence, adulthood (social activities, educational, occupational, military, current living situation, legal history), the psychosexual history and the family history. The Mental Status Examination included an appraisal of behavior/psychomotor activity, cognitive tests (sensorium, orientation, memory test, attention and concentration, constructional skill, tests of higher cognitive functions as general fund of information and intelligence, calculation, abstract thinking, reasoning judgment, insight), an evaluation of emotional status (mood, affect and appropriateness/deviation from the normal mood/affect), an evaluation of speech patterns (quality and quantity), an evaluation of perceptual disturbance, and though appraisal (process or form content). Both the petitioner and the respondent were interviewed. However, not much data was gathered from the respondent on his family and personal background owing to the nature of his personality problem. This evaluation utilized accounts of the petitioner as the main informant and other informants who personally knew him, in order to elicit additional data. Analysis of the case: The psychiatric evaluation of the respondent, showed the presence of Avoidant Personality Disorder, which is described in the criteria of the DSM-IV TR

17
(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition text revision-a standard American classification of mental diseases) seen below: DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR AVOIDANT PERSONALITY DISORDER

A pervasive pattern of social discomfort, fear of negative evaluation, and timidity, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by at least four of the following:

(1) Is easily hurt by criticism or disapproval (2) Has no close friends or confidants (or only one) other than first-degree relatives (3) Is unwilling to get involved with people unless certain of being liked (4) Avoids social or occupational activities that involve significant interpersonal contact, e.g. refuses a promotion that will increase social demands (5) Is reticent in social situations because of a fear of saying something inappropriate or foolish, or of being unable to answer a question (6) Fears being embarrassed by blushing, crying, or showing signs of anxiety in front of other people (7) Exaggerates potential difficulties, physical dangers, or risks involved in doing something ordinary but outside of his or her usual routine, e.g. may cancel social plans because she anticipates being exhausted by the effort of getting there He fulfilled criterion # 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

13. Fourth and fifth, the permanence and incurability of respondents Avoidant Personality Disorder which has been deeply ingrained in his system since his early years was supported by evidence duly explained by the expert witness, and has been shown to be sufficiently grave, rendering him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. In her Sworn Statement (Exh. E), petitioner stated that on their wedding night she and respondent did not consummate the marriage because respondent said he was tired; they were able to consummate their marriage around two weeks after their wedding; they engaged in sex less than 10 times during their marriage because he either refused or hesitated to do so because he claimed to be tired and did not feel like it; on the occasions that they had sex it was forced and happened at odd hours in the morning and petitioner felt that she was being raped; on many occasions respondent would masturbate on their matrimonial bed while petitioner was lying beside him; petitioner wanted to have children but even though she discussed her fertile days with respondent he did not want to have sex during those days; it was respondent who chose where they will reside because it only around 5 minutes away from his parents house; despite the proximity petitioner has never been to her parents-in-laws house

18 because she was never brought there by respondent; respondent never gave his opinion about household matters or talk about family matters; respondent is very uncomfortable when he is around petitioners friends or family; she felt like she was living with a stranger and never felt like she never had a husband because they had their own separate activities and she had no link to her in-laws. Petitioner affirmed and confirmed the contents of her Sworn Statement when she testified on August 8, 2011 (TSN, August 8, 2011, pp. 11-14, 16, 18, 25). She further testified that she personally observed or witnessed the respondent doing the things she mentioned in her Sworn Statement including his dysfunctional sexual behavior; when she confronted respondent about those things he did not have any reaction (Id., pp. 7-10); respondents behavior did not change and that he was still acting like he was still single so she had to remind him that he was not single anymore and should act as a married man because she wanted a family (Id., pp. 15, 17); and he would never make any decision if she asked him about simple things that would affect both of them (Id., p. 18). Upon clarificatory questions from the Honorable Court, petitioners witness Karen testified:
Q A Q A Q A From your statement you feel to be are closer to the petitioner and the respondent? Yes, Your Honor. After the marriage as a close friends to the petitioner confided to you her problems? Yes, Your Honor. What kind of problems she tell you? She would tell me how XYZ was very uncaring, did not invite her to his family during Christmas. I would tell ABC my in laws would invite me during Christmas or during New Year but according to ABC she has been only with her in laws once they got married and then her sister in law got married. So she felt that she was not actually close to XYZ. Did she confide to you some deeper personal problems with XYZ involving her life as a married couple? They are not doing thing as a couple they were not going to church together they were not hanging out together, they were not watching movies normal things that a normal couples would do. This revelation did not include the sexual contact? There were also stories about their sexual contact. From the petitioner, she told you about that? Yes, Your Honor. Specifically on what matters? That they were not doing sexual activities together which is actually

Q A Q A Q A Q A

19
normal for a married couple. She mentioned to you that XYZ would prefer do his things alone? Yes, Your Honor, which is unusual for a married man . (TSN, Nov. 11, 2011, pp. 15-16, emphasis ours)

Q A

In explaining the gravity, permanence, and incurability of respondents Avoidant Personality Disorder, Dr. D explained in her Psychiatric Report (Exh. D):
The respondent being the only son was close to his mother. Also as a middle child, he would cling to his mother often in order to obtain comfort for his feelings of inadequacy. He was by nature quiet, timid and introverted. As he grew up, he developed into a person who had fears of being unloved. As a young student, he did not get involved in school activities, borne out of his fears as well as his low self-esteem. He started being avoidant in his functioning. Slowly, in high school up to college, he would fight out his fears of rejection by compensating in the academics. With his poor social skills, he had no experience with the opposite sex. This reflected his fearfulness of being belittled by others. When they met, he was found to have a significant pattern of social withdrawal. Before marriage with the petitioner, he felt intimidated by her and the people close to her, even when they were not doing him any harm at all. He was a loner and had other initiate any meaningful interaction but never him. The petitioner had to put all efforts to get to him. She had to steer him in the proper path to comply with the social norm of asking her hand in marriage. He could not ward off the petitioners persistent advances and eventually married her. However, his actions did not stop during the marriage. His avoidant behavior became fullblown as he did not invite his wife to join him in visiting his family. He went about his solitary activities by himself. This was observed by the petitioner who saw his great discomfort when they were together, as he preferred to be alone. These reflected the severity of his Avoidant Personality Disorder. The happenings during marriage were perceived as threatening. His severe selfjudgment made him protectively withdraw from his surroundings, the petitioner included. Thus why he avoided interaction with his wife and her family during family gatherings for they might criticize him. He turned to himself in isolation from the world around him, including shutting the petitioner out of his life. His anxiety was unbearable until she was the one who confronted him and eventually left him. It was all due to his Avoidant Personality Disorder that made him keep away from his spouse. His own derogation and self-reproach led him to focus seriously in his work or whatever he was doing at a particular time. He turned to his own world and isolated himself from his surroundings. He avoided the issue of sex and having a kid. It was all due to the Avoidant Personality Disorder that led to his inability to love and care for his wife. The petitioner grew up having a controlling and over-involved mother. This made her dread abandonment and cling to significant others, as she felt lost in the absence of a strong figure in her life. This dependency was prominent in her relationships with the opposite sex. Hence, she always felt betrayed when a boyfriend left her for another girl. This clearly showed some manifestations of her Dependent Personality, even before marriage. She constantly needed her mothers approval as to her friends, her job and finally, her husband. Unconsciously, she always sought her guidance and support that made her do excellent work in her studies and her job. As part of her dependent nature, she even gave up on her inclination to keep pursuing her artistic gifts. She had to run back to her mother after the separation, even when she was strongly against her control and meticulous discipline of her. She rebelled against her but she always hungered for her mothers affection. Initially, she thought that having a withdrawn husband would mean the absence of this control that she abhorred. She expected peace and security. She however saw that there was no give-and-take in this marriage. He was no fun as he kept to his own routine. They did not communicate and the love that she longed for

20
was not what she got. She remained firm in her decision to cut the marital bond. Finally, her own dependent personality contributed to the failure of this marriage. Remarks and Recommendations: The evaluation showed that the respondent presented with Avoidant Personality Disorder, described as a persistent pattern of social withdrawal, due to hypersensitivity to criticism, noted before marriage. It has poor treatment outcome because it is an enduring and persistent disorder that is developmental in origin. It is grave and serious that led to the break-up of the marriage. It caused the respondent not to do his responsibilities to love and care for his wife. The Dependent Personality of the petitioner contributed to the outcome of the marriage. The petitioner is unlikely to reconsider living with him again since he could not answer her dependency needs. Therefore, with these findings, the petition for nullity of marriage between them is highly recommended. Both can benefit from this since they can still find future partners whom they can have healthier relationships. D, M.D. (emphasis ours)

Dr. D testified that she was familiar with the parties as she was able to interview them both, the petitioners mother, the respondents boss Eduardo, and petitioners friend Karen; based on her psychiatric evaluation of the parties, respondent had an Avoidant Personality Disorder while petitioner had a Dependent Personality (TSN, January 30, 2012, pp. 5, 6); respondents Avoidant Personality Disorder is severe, permanent, and incurable, and grave enough to disable him from assuming his essential marital obligations; petitioner has an avoidant personality; the parties respective psychological conditions developed gradually from childhood; and there is a link between the parties respective psychological conditions and the way they behave towards each other as spouses:
Q A Now, lets go to the respondent. You said that he has an Avoidant Personality Disorder, in laymans terms what should that be? This is a type of a person who exceeded extreme, a tendencies to avoid or to be extremely shy and a loner and would rather be by himself than socialize or interact with others even with his close family members and friends. Now in determining that the respondent has Avoidant Personality Disorder, were you able to conduct an examination of him? Yes Sir, I was able to talk to him also. Now, in your expert opinion what is the root cause of this disorder? Well, Avoidant Personality Disorders could be familiar with is handed down or seen or modeled by other family members and then at the same time it could be a part of the way he was brought up wherein the social skills were not emphasized in terms of how a child grows up. In your opinion and experience did the respondents disorder developed gradually thru the years or did it come about just suddenly? It gradually developed thru the years as part of his developmental process as he growing up as an individual into maturity. So from childhood? Yes, from childhood up to adulthood.

Q A Q A

Q A Q A

21
Q A Now, is there a link between respondents disorder and the way he behaves as the husband and the way he treats his wife? Yes, even before the marriage his avoidant behavior was already noted in his having known always being alone, he was unsocial or not interactive with others, he was not fond of going with others, except being alone, and this was already noted prior to the marriage or while they were still steadies at that time. How would you characterize the gravity or severity of the respondents disorder? The respondents disorder was actually severe knowing that during marriage the avoidant behavior was noted in his shyness or excessive timidity even interacting with the petitioner herself because at home he would not talk or initiate the conversation with the wife, when they went to family gatherings he was just alone in one corner he abhorred or did not bring his wife to meet his family and only on important occasions such as weddings, he did not bring his spouse to even enter his familys room. This was perceived or evaluated as excessive and severe. In this case this disorder curable? This Avoidant Personality Disorder its characteristic signs and symptoms is not anymore curable. Now on the part of the petitioner you said that she has a Dependent Personality, so in laymans term what it this mean? This is a set of characteristics wherein the individual remained attached or closed or would lead others to decide or to do things for them and they are set to please the persons that are more of stronger personality of whom they can depend on. In the case of the petitioner to whom was she dependent on? She was dependent on her mother who was characterized as over controlling and over involved who was still monitoring her from childhood up to now that she is already reached adulthood race and was always expecting a lot from her in life, especially the job and even the husband the gust that she interacted with or even possible candidates for marriage. So are you saying that the major decisions in petitioners life the petitioner had to secure the approval of her mother? Yes, thats correct. Now, in your expert opinion what is the root cause of petitioners dependent personality? This was the strong, over controlling and over protective nature of her mother who always molded her as she grew up into one who would always have to seek the advice and decisions of her mother. In your opinion and experience did the petitioners dependent personality happened overnight or suddenly or did it develop gradually into? It developed gradually or developed mentally thru the years from childhood to adulthood. Now is there a link between petitioners dependent personality on the way she behaves as a wife? Yes, actually, from her mother she wanted to transfer that dependency to a husband who was a very good worker, she excelled academically and also in her work because she is intelligent. He was also well favored by her family who looked up to his credentials in his intelligence as a good candidate for them as a husband and therefore, she wanted to transfer this feeling of dependency on the husband. So she married the respondent because her family approved of him? Yes, Sir. Now, you said that the family of the petitioner approved to the respondent because he was good at work and also had academic achievements, now does his having academic achievements and he was good at work, meaning the he is not psychologically incapacitated? No, Sir, rather his academic and work achievements are part of quoting in

Q A

Q A Q A

Q A

Q A Q A Q A Q A

Q A Q

22
these psychological problems in the disorders. So its possible for a person to be academically gifted and successful, at the same time to be psychologically incapacitated? Yes, Sir, its possible. (TSN, January 30, 2012, pp. 6-9)

Q A

14. Sixth, respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations embodied in Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. As a result of his Avoidant Personality Disorder, he is unable to make any commitment to his wife from simple things such as household matters, to procreation making him unable to understand his responsibilities as a husband. He plainly failed to fulfill his marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and support under Article 68. Indeed, one who does not understand how the concept of marriage works, and who cannot contribute to the material, physical, and emotional well-being of his spouse is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations under Article 36. Dr. D testified as to how she was able to determine that respondents Avoidant Personality Disorder makes him unable to comply with his essential marital obligations:
Q A Q A Q A And there is an allegation by ABC that never once she was brought to the house of the respondent, did you confirm this with XYZ? Yes. And did he give any reason? No, he just said enough. Is there a possibility by your experience and based on your evaluation that the family of the boy XYZ does not approve of ABC? Based on the petitioners allegations when they did the pamanhikan and the parents were there they were treated well in the family of the respondent but she could not even understand why her spouse could not even invite her to go to his parents place when he goes there every weekend. Is this also a manifestation or concurrence that he was only influenced or the marriage was not his own decision but only because ABC was his first girlfriend? Actually, based on my interview with him he said that he will do anything to fix the marriage and even if he is losing his job, relocating or doing anything as long as he would get her back, but according to the petitioner there was no action coming from him to her. So there is still a possibility of reconciliation between the parties, is this correct? I dont think so, the respondent although wanted to get her back never lifted a finger to pursue her to go to ___, get her back or pursue her but there was no action or even calling her, texting her, there was no mention of that and went home to ________, there was no communication coming from him to her, only a one-sided, she was the one calling or making contact with him, never did he go to ___________ to be with her. So primarily the disorder or the defect here as one of the results of your examination was on the respondent himself? Yes, Maam.

Q A

Q A

Q A

23
Q A Even in the allegation of the petitioner as to the alleged reluctance of the respondent to have sexual intercourse, was this brought to the attention of their parents? Yes, according to the petitioner she was the one who courted him, she was also the one who would initiate sexual encounters everytime and there is less than I think 10 times only that they had the intimacy together as husband and wife thats her own initiation not coming from the spouse. So is there a possibility of homosexuality on the behavior of the respondent? According to the boss whom I interviewed there was no actuations or anything outwardly behavior in the office that would point to that, he would rather sit alone and worked alone and not be distracted that even his wife calling him he will put down the phone. This was quite more of a super nerd rather than in homosexual. So it is all about upbringing? Yes. I think so it was more of the upbringing because the parents were also did not make any move to visit the in-law, when they were newly married and for all the years that they stayed together there was no initiative on their part to meet her. (TSN, January 30, 2012, pp. 12-13, emphasis ours)

Q A

Q A

Respondent was also unconcerned about his obligation to provide emotional and sexual intimacy to petitioner, as alleged in par. 5 of the Amended Petition (Exh. A):
a) Contrary to petitioners expectations, that as newlyweds she and the respondent would consummate their marriage on their wedding night, they failed to do so due to respondents lack of interest; b) The respondent was very averse to having sexual intercourse with the petitioner, so much so that throughout their four years of married life they had sexual intercourse less than 10 times; c) Although respondent alleged that he wanted to have children, he always claimed that he was tired and didnt feel like it whenever petitioner asked him to have sex;

While in her Sworn Statement (Exh. E) petitioner narrated:

After your marriage, where did you spend your wedding night? At the hotel where we had our wedding reception. What happened during your wedding night? We just went to sleep. We did not consummate the marriage. Did you ask him why he did not want to consummate your marriage? He said he was tired. What was your reaction to that? I thought it was strange but decided not to dwell too much on it because I figured we had the rest of our lives to be with each other. Were you able to consummate your marriage? Yes, maybe 2 weeks after the wedding. Did you engage in pre-marital sex? Yes. During your marriage, how many times did you engage in sex? Less than 10 times. Given that you engaged in pre-marital sex, why did it take you two weeks to consummate your marriage, and why did you engage in sex less than 10 times during your marriage? We engaged in pre-marital sex only twice, and at that time it felt normal. After the marriage, it was no longer this way. He acted strangely to having sex, either refusing or hesitating to do so. I found it weird that we did not have a normal

24
sex life after we got married, since it felt normal to do so before our marriage. I dont really understand how it turned out this way. Did he tell you why he refused or hesitated to engage in sex with you? He would say he was tired and didnt feel like it. What was your reaction to this? I felt that his behavior was very abnormal. Especially because on many occasions, he would masturbate in our bed beside me while he thought I was asleep. And in the less than 10 times that we had sex, for the most part it was forced and it would happen at really odd hours in the morning and I felt like I was being raped. Do you have any child or children? No. Did you want to have children with him? Yes I did. In fact, when I returned from the vacation in US, I talked to him about conceiving a child and even discussed openly my fertile days so that it would help us plan. But I just got disappointed when he still did not want to have sex during my fertile days. Did he want to have children? He said he did. (underscoring ours)

Respondent practically refused to engage in sexual intercourse with petitioner with the consistent alibi that he was tired. Yet he is not impotent, as he was never too tired to masturbate on their matrimonial bed while petitioner was lying beside him. Respondents aberrant sexual behavior his inhibitions at having a regular sexual relationship with his wife and refusal to have a child with her are physical manifestations of a psychological disorder that renders him incapable of complying with his marital obligations (Azcueta v. Republic, supra). In the landmark case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals (266 SCRA 324, 333335 [1997]) the Supreme Court emphasized that constant non-fulfillment of the marital obligation to procreate is equivalent to 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 nonfulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity. As aptly stated by the respondent court, An examination of the evidence convinces Us that the husband's plea that the wife did not want carnal intercourse with him does not inspire belief. Since he was not physically impotent, but he refrained from sexual intercourse during the entire time (from May 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989) that he occupied the same bed with his wife, purely out of sympathy for her feelings, he deserves to be doubted for not having asserted his right seven though she balked (Tompkins vs. Tompkins, 111 Atl. 599, cited in I Paras, Civil Code, at p. 330). Besides, if it were true that it is the wife was suffering from incapacity, the fact that defendant did not go to court and seek the declaration of nullity weakens his claim. This case was instituted by the wife whose normal expectations of her marriage were

25
frustrated by her husband's inadequacy. Considering the innate modesty of the Filipino woman, it is hard to believe that she would expose her private life to public scrutiny and fabricate testimony against her husband if it were not necessary to put her life in order and put to rest her marital status. We are not impressed by defendant's claim that what the evidence proved is the unwillingness or lack of intention to perform the sexual act, which is not psychological incapacity, and which can be achieved "through proper motivation." After almost ten months of cohabitation, the admission that the husband is reluctant or unwilling to perform the sexual act with his wife whom he professes to love very dearly, and who has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his alleged approaches, is indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder that constitutes psychological incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants within the contemplation of the Family Code. While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually the "spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order" (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say "I could not have cared less." This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations. It appears that there is absence of empathy between petitioner and private respondent. That is a shared feeling which between husband and wife must be experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution. This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the studied judgment of respondent appellate court.

The actuations of respondent prove that he has totally failed to understand, comprehend, and comply with his essential marital obligations. Petitioner and her witnesses were emphatic about his behavior on matters concerning his relationship with and marriage to petitioner, and the pathologic nature thereof, which are revelatory of his inability to understand and perform the essential obligations of marriage. Indeed, a person unable to comply with his obligations to his spouse would similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the marital bond, much less its psychic meaning, and the corresponding obligations attached to marriage. One unable to comprehend his essential marital obligations cannot be expected to adhere as well to any legal or emotional commitments.

26 In view of the foregoing, it is difficult to see how a marriage between respondent who has an avoidant personality disorder and petitioner who has a dependent personality would result in commitment to the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect. As testified to by Dr. D:
Q A But what happens when a person with a dependent personality such as the petitioner gets married to a person with an Avoidant Personality Disorder such as the respondent? A dependent person, of course, would not be able to sustain a good and therapeutic marriage with a one having avoidant, the Avoidant Personality Disorder would tend always to evade and to avoid and to be detached from others even with their spouses which does not fulfill the need of a person being a dependent personality. So even though the petitioner does not have any disorder but just a dependent personality even that she is married to a person with that personality disorder, so the effect is still the same? Yes, its really possible that she has to get out of this marriage because of the severity and the inability or in the capacity of the respondents change and conform or to accommodate her needs. What is the effect of the parties in their respective conditions with their capacity to assume or to understand their marital obligations? One with the personality disorder is not capable anymore to assume marital obligations, to love, to care and so on, while one with the only set of the personality traits can still or able to do his obligations in marriage. Are the parties capable of their basic marital obligations? If the person has the disorder there is actually now a difficulty or they have incapability to understand their marital obligations because they cannot see it the way that a normal person can see it. Their own version or the point of their obligations are already distorted because of their personality disorders. And is there a possibility for the treatment of this kind of personality of the respondent? I dont think so he is very comfortable. Actually a persons with Avoidant Personality Disorder are so comfortable with their avoidant behavior that they do not see it as problematic its the other who are disturbed and having problems with them, rather than them with themselves. So in short you are saying that the degree of the disorder of ABC is not serious? It did not reach the criteria only the mother deciding for her and her being too dependent on the mothers affirmation and decisions. But when she met the Avoidant Personality Disorder of XYZ their marriage became no longer tolerable? Yes, Your Honor. (TSN, January 30, 2012, pp. 10-11, 13, 14-15, emphasis ours)

Q A Q A Q A

x-x-x Q A

x-x-x Q A Q A

Said the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated June 9, 2009 in Halili v. Halili (GR No. 165424):
It has been sufficiently established that petitioner had a psychological condition that was grave and incurable and had a deeply rooted cause. This Court, in the

27
same Te case, recognized that individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually have long-term concerns, and thus therapy may be long-term. Particularly, personality disorders are long-standing, inflexible ways of behaving that are not so much severe mental disorders as dysfunctional styles of living.

These disorders affect all areas of functioning and, beginning in childhood or adolescence, create problems for those who display them and for others.

Prayer WHEREFORE, petitioner most respectfully prays that her marriage to respondent be declared void ab initio. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. September 18, 2012, __________, Philippines.