Você está na página 1de 4

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Third Judicial Region
Branch 27
Quezon City, Metro Manila

MARIELOT D. GUTIERRES
Petitioner,

-versus-
Civil Case No.
For: Judicial Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage

RAMONITO D. GUTIERRES
Respondent.
x------------------------------x

ANSWER

DEFENDANT RAMONITO D. GUTIERRES, through


undersigned counsel, to the Honorable Court, most
respectfully avers the following:
1. That he ADMITS the contents of paragraph 2 only
insofar as his personal circumstances are concerned.
2. That he ADMITS paragraph 3 and 4.
3. That he DENIES paragraph 5, the truth of the matter
being, that they are just only a business partners and
a close friend as well and no other.
4. That he DENIES paragraph 6, the truth of the matter,
that it was only a gossip and he do not know the
author of it, that the petitioner heard it from one of her
friends who also working at the same company.
5. That he DENIES paragraph 7, the truth of the matter
being that he never confronted the petitioner and told
that he is a gay. In addition, the petitioner was the one
who always avoided conversations about having a
child since she is not ready yet.
6. That he DENIES paragraph 8 and 9, the truth of the
matter being that it was the petitioner who initiated
fights over petty matters and being aloof to the
respondent.
7. That he DENIES paragraph 10, the truth of the matter
being, that it was the petitioner who is keeping a
boyfriend. The respondent has been told by one of his
friends that he saw the petitioner together with a man
other than the respondent in a restaurant holding
hands and exchanging kisses. Respondent asked the
petitioner about the matter but she always denied it
and would only dismiss the conversation.
8. That he DENIES paragraph 11, the truth of the matter
being that the respondent while driving home from
work at around 8:00 pm was shocked when he saw the
petitioner with another man, holding hands and
exchanging kisses while entering a hotel. At that
night, petitioner texted the respondent that she is with
her parents house in Pasay City. Respondent knew
that his wife was lying that time because she is with
another man at the hotel. Frustrated from what he
discovered, respondent tried to end up his life.
9. The consultation with a psychologist is ADMITTED in
paragraph 12. The respondents friends requested him
to seek help from a psychologist regarding his state of
depression which caused him to attempt against his
own life. But respondent denies that it is sufficient to
establish his supposed psychological incapacity and is
not grave enough to prevent him from complying with
essential marital obligations.
10. The respondent by way of affirmative defense that
the petition FAILS TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION. A
cursory reading of the petition would show that it fails
to allege the element of incurability. In the case of
Santos v. CA, the Supreme Court enumerated the
three requirements of psychological incapacity: (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this


Honorable Court that judgment be rendered dismissing the
petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage between
petitioner Marielot D. Gutierres and respondent Ramonito D.
Gutierres for failure to show proof that it is null and void
under Artile 36 of the Family Code.

All other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.
Quezon City, Philippines, September 27, 2016.

KIEZEL S. FERRANCULLO
Counsel for Respondent
Roll No. 60320
IBP No 893946/3-19-15/Pasay City
PTR No. 2162937/5-10-15/Pasay City
21-A E.Rodriguez St. Pasay City
Commission No. 101167/Pasay City
Until December 21, 2016
MCLE Compliance No. V-00194569-04/25/16

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JOANNA D. SARTIN


Roll No. 477586
IBP No 873645/3-13-11/Manila
PTR No. 8394/04-08-11/Manila
Sartin, Sartin and Associates 234 V. Cruz, Manila
Commission No. 101157/ Manila
Until December 21, 2016
MCLE Compliance No. V-00194390-04/20/11

Você também pode gostar