Republic of the PhilippinesRegional Trial Court

(Family Court)6th Judicial Region

Branch ___, Bacolod City

CLARISSA DE BELEN PEÑALOSA, Civil Case No. ________Plaintiff,

For: DECLARATION OFNULLITY OF MARRIAGE

-versus- ON THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

JOHNDEL PEÑALOSA, Defendant.

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

ANSWER

COMES NOW, Respondent JOHNDEL PENALOSA, through counsel, in

answer to the COMPLAINT dated September 30, 2014 which the respondent

received on October 1, 2014, most respectfully avers that:

PARTIES

(1.) Defendant Johndel a.k.a. “JD” Penalosa is of legal age, Filipino, and a resident

of 345 Ayala North Point Subdivision, Talisay City, Neg. Occ. For purposes

of this Answer, Defendant may be served with summons, writs and all court

processes at the office address of the undersigned counsel;

(2.) Plaintiff Clarissa de Belen Penalosa is of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of

123 Town and Country Subdivision, Talisay City, Neg. Occ., where she may

be served with summons, writs and all orders of the Honorable Court, it being

her last known address.

ADMISSIONS/DENIALS

(3.) Defendant admit the allegations as set forth in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10

and 11 of the COMPLAINT dated September 30, 2014;

(4.) Defendant admit the contents of paragraph 4 only on the matter as to their

respective career but specifically denies that Defendant will use the alibi of

being busy and tired when in fact it was the Plaintiff who rejected his

invitation to spend time together;

1 | P a g e

(5.) Defendant admit the contents of paragraph 5 only on the matter that

Defendant did not communicate with the Plaintiff for several days but

specifically denies the portion that the defendant was involved with another

woman;

(6.) Defendant admit the contents of paragraph 12 only as to the fact that the

defendant will sometimes arrived late in the evening, but specifically denies

the portion that the defendant had missed coming home. Furthermore,

Defendant specifically denies allegations of having an illicit affair with

another woman nor was there any various withdrawals and used up credit

cards as explained in the Affirmative Defenses below;

(7.) Defendant qualifiedly admit portion of the allegations in paragraph 17 of

the complaint that a confrontation took place between the Plaintiff and

Defendant. However, the said confrontation took place when the Plaintiff

arrived home from her work and NOT when the Defendant arrived home

the next morning as contended by the Plaintiff. (Emphasis Supplied) The

Defendant specifically denies the allegation that “He readily admitted to

the illicit relationship.” (Emphasis Supplied) There was in fact no

admission that took place during the altercation between the spouses as

explained in the Affirmative Defenses below;

(8.) Defendant qualifiedly admit the allegations as set forth in paragraph 20 of

the complaint that they live separately but specifically denies the portion of

non-contribution in paying the home loan as explained in the Affirmative

Defense below;

(9.) Defendant specifically denies the contents of paragraphs 7, 13, 14, 15, 16,

18, 19, and 21 up to 28 for the reasons stated in the Affirmative Defenses

below.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the

foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that the Complaint

should be dismissed and further avers that:

(10.) Plaintiff being raised from a financially stable family has been a spoiled

brat and always gets what she wants. She refuses to listen and hear

explanations and discussions. She always wanted to win the argument.

2 | P a g e

With these, communications between the Plaintiff and Defendant was

severed due to the insistent demands and baseless accusations made by the

Plaintiff on the Defendant. Defendant remained to be faithful,

understanding and true to his feelings towards the Plaintiff despite her

occasional “mood swings”, jealousy and unreasonable anxiety which

greatly affect their relationship.

(11.) Plaintiff in one time admitted that due to the pressure as experienced in her

work she had developed this “mood swings” and unreasonable anxiety

problem; thus, affecting not only their relationship but also her health and

emotional stability which explains her jealousy towards any lady friend of

the Defendant;

(12.) Defendant specifically denies paragraph 7 and 13, stating that it is

impossible for the defendant to experience financial difficulty as alleged by

the Plaintiff i.e. borrowing money to the Plaintiff and using the same for a

drinking spree with friends; and failure to provide for the major expenses

specifically payment for the house loan. The said allegations is doubtful

and without valid basis. In several occasions, Defendant was asked by the

Plaintiff to pay for the home loan to which issuance of receipts were paid

under his name and this was kept by the Defendant and attached hereto

(EXHIBIT“1”);

(13.) Defendant has been employed with ABC bank as a teller for seven years

and earning a net monthly salary of P 35,000.00 a month plus a monthly

allowance of P 5,000.00 (EXHIBIT “2”).

(14.) Defendant upon being designated by the employer bank as Assistant

Manager (EXHIBIT “3”) the Defendant receives an additional monthly

salary increment of P 15,000.00 and an additional monthly allowance of P

5,000.00; thus, total net monthly salary amounting to P 50,000.00 plus a

total monthly allowance of P 10,000.00.

(15.) The monthly income of the defendant as aforementioned is more than

enough to pay for any family expenses, emergency expenses and other

miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, the allegations with regards to

borrowing money from the Plaintiff are baseless.

(16.) Plaintiff Clarissa being an Executive Assistant of Convergys whose work

requires an evening shift from seven in the evening (7pm) until four in the

3 | P a g e

morning (4 am) and often requiring the latter to render an extended time in

her work due to the exigencies of her responsibilities as Executive Assistant

of Convergys;

(17.) Defendant being the Assistant Manager of ABC Bank and whose

responsibilities requires an extended working hours will indeed entail the

Defendant to arrive late at night. However, there has been no occasion

wherein he will not come home to their conjugal abode. As aforementioned

by the Defendant, the Plaintiff works during night time and every time the

Defendant arrives home the Plaintiff has already left for work. Henceforth,

allegations made by the Plaintiff are based on hearsays and any doubts

occurring thereto and questioning the faithfulness of the Defendant in their

marriage is caused by her “mood swings”, jealousy and unreasonable

anxiety;

(18.) Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 14, 16, and 18 of

the complaints wherein Plaintiff presented evidences. Defendant has no

knowledge on the matters with regards to the text messages with one named

Evelyn Ruiz, a very “compromising” photos, facebook photos of Evelyn

Ruiz with caption thereof and other evidences as presented against the

Defendant. The same should be denied from being offered as evidences due

to its inadmissibility and questionable authenticity and genuineness;

(19.) Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 15 and 19 of the

complaints where the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was involved with

a woman named Evelyn Ruiz, a 22-year old apprentice of ABC bank. That

the same is not true since Evelyn Ruiz who was once an apprentice of the

bank has already left the bank since February 2012, signifying thereto her

intention to work abroad (EXHIBIT 4);

(20.) Plaintiff was the one who fabricated the issue of the illicit affair involving

with one Evelyn Ruiz. But the same is impossible since Evelyn Ruiz had

already left the bank and was not seen by the Defendant after she left;

(21.) Plaintiff Clarissa was the one who threatened the Defendant to leave their

conjugal dwelling. In one altercation that took place the Plaintiff shouted to

the Defendant “Tama na ni, na kapoy na ko!! Indi ta na ka gusto makita

kag hinugay ka na di magpalapit sa balay liwat, layas!!” (Let’s stop this, I

am tired!! I don’t want to see you anymore and don’t you dare come in this

4 | P a g e

house again, go away!!) Despite Defendant’s objections with the decision

of the Plaintiff to leave her alone; however, the same was refused by the

latter;

(22.) Defendant after several months and after taking into consideration what had

transpired, returned to their conjugal dwelling to explain and reconcile with

the Plaintiff. However, Defendant was refused entry thereof, Plaintiff was

hysterical when she saw the Defendant and remains to be firm with her

decisions;

(23.) Defendant despite exerting efforts to patch their broken relationship had

failed in doing the same due to the constant rejections demonstrated by the

Plaintiff towards the Defendant. Furthermore, Plaintiff refused to

communicate nor settle their indifferences with each other; thus, there was

impossibility on the part of the Defendant to somehow live with her in their

conjugal dwelling;

(24.) Defendant specifically denies the contents of paragraph 21 to 28, to wit:

(a.) Defendant is more than capable to provide for the necessary expenses

of the family and therefore the allegation of the Plaintiff that Defendant

failed to pay for the home loan is without valid basis;

(b.) Defendant neither fabricated any stories nor attempted to borrow

money from the Plaintiff for his drinking spree with his buddies thus

allegation is without valid basis;

(c.)Defendant is more than willing to reconcile with the Plaintiff. However,

due to the ill-feelings that the Plaintiff had harboured towards the

Defendant, Plaintiff refused to give the Defendant another chance to

prove his love, sincerity and faithfulness towards the Plaintiff and to

their marriage;

(d.) Despite the want of the Defendant to live with the Plaintiff it has

become an impossible chores for the Defendant due to the unwillingness

on the part of the Plaintiff to consider any reconciliation;

(e.) Defendant has no existing illicit affair with one named Evelyn Ruiz nor

to any other woman, evidences presented are merely fabricated by the

Plaintiff in order to free herself from any responsibility in the marriage

that they promised to be bound forever;

5 | P a g e

(f.) Defendant objected on leaving the conjugal dwelling. However, it was

the Plaintiff who refused to live with the Defendant and it was the

Plaintiff who ordered Defendant to leave her alone;

(g.) Defendant did not have any means of communication nor any

connection with one named Evelyn Ruiz nor did the Defendant had any

knowledge of Evelyn Ruiz carrying their first born child;

(h.) Defendant despite efforts of reconciliation with the Plaintiff, his

offer to continue helping in the payment of their home loan was

impossible since it was the Plaintiff who refused to communicate with

the Defendant;

(25.) The basis of the Plaintiff in filing for nullity of marriage against the

Defendant on the basis of psychological incapacity is without legal basis

and therefore should be dismissed on the ground that it lack the three basic

requirements as mandated by the Higher Court in Santos v. Court of

Appeals, to wit: “psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)

gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (3) incurability.” Granting if there

was any truth to the statements made by the Plaintiff, which is obviously

devoid from any truthfulness that it holds, the herein allegations lacks any

substantial compliance of these three requisites specifically on item no. 3;

(a) As stated in the case of Mendoza v. Republic, G.R. No. 157649,

November 12, 2012, the nullification of marriage due to psychological

incapacity filed by Mendoza against Dominic did not prosper. The

decision of the Supreme Court provides that: “the Court DENIES the

petition for review on certiorari; and affirms the decision promulgated

on March 19, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 68615.”

(b) Moreover, the decision of the Court of Appeals is clear in stating that:

“the Court refuses to be bound by such finding, in view of the fact that

the witness’ findings, admittedly, were concluded only on the basis of

information given by the petitioner herself, who, at the time of the

examination, interview, was already headstrong in her resolve to have

her marriage with the respondent nullified, and harboured ill-feelings

against respondent throughout her consultation with Dr. Samson.”

6 | P a g e

(26.) The herein case further rely its decision on the pronouncements made in the

case of Republic v. Dagdag, Hernandez v. Court of Appeals and Pesca v.

Pesca, stating that:

“In her testimony, the petitioner described her husband as

immature, deceitful and without remorse for his dishonesty, and lack of

affection. Such characteristics, however, do not necessarily constitute a

case of psychological incapacity, or to feel remorse for his misbehaviour,

or even to share his earnings with family members, are indicative of an

immature mind, but not necessarily a medically rooted psychological

affliction that cannot be cured.

Even the respondent’s alleged sexual infidelity is not necessarily

equivalent to psychological incapacity, x x x.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that judgment be rendered in

his favour by dismissing the Complaint.

Respondent likewise pray for such other and further relief or reliefs as this

Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.

Most respectfully submitted this 7th day of October, 2014 at the City of

Bacolod Philippines.

A.TYANS AND J. MORTIME LAW OFFICESCounsel for the Defendant 2nd Floor V & A BuildingLacson Street, 6100 Bacolod City

ATTY. GIBIT A. TYANSRoll of Attorney No. 906112IBP No. 240906 – Bacolod City- April 3, 2010PTR No. 958305– Bacolod City – April 3, 2010MCLE Compliance No.: EXEMPTED

7 | P a g e

VERIFICATION

I, JOHNDEL a.k.a. “JD” PEÑALOSA, of legal age, Filipino, after being sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state that as the respondent in Civil Case NO. _________ entitled “CLARISSA DE BELEN PEÑALOSA v. JOHNDEL PEÑALOSA” now pending before Branch ___, Regional Trial Court (Family Court), Bacolod City, I caused the preparation of the foregoing ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES dated October 7, 2014, and that the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and based on authentic records and documents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand this 7th day of October 2014 at Bacolod City, Philippines.

JOHNDEL PEÑALOSAAffiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the date and at the place first above-written by Johndel a.k.a. “JD” Penalosa with his Tax Identification Number 456-8900-004 issued on June 2, 2006.

ATTY. JUAN MORTIMERoll of Attorney No. 122782IBP No. 19387 – Bacolod City – March 3, 2011PTR No. 10486– Bacolod City – March 3, 2011

MCLE Compliance No.: EXEMPTED

8 | P a g e