Legal Memorandum Psychological Incapacity
-
Upload
imelda-arreglo-agripa -
Category
Documents
-
view
61 -
download
5
description
Transcript of Legal Memorandum Psychological Incapacity
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESREGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 31, MARIKINA CITY
Selena Gomez-Magalona Petitioner,
-versus-
Civil Case No. 72363For: Petition for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage
Andrew Magalona Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT
THE RESPONDENT, Andrew Magalona, through counsel, respectfully state:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a petition filed by SELENA GOMEZ-MAGALONA for Declaration of Nullity of
her marriage to respondent ANDREW MAGALONA. The petitioner brought this action based
on Article 36 in relation to Articles on 68, 69, 10 and 71 of the Family Code of the
Philippines as Amended on the ground that the respondent is psychologically incapacitated
to discharge the basic and essential obligations of marriage.
MATERIAL FACTS
Andrew and Selena got married on October 2002. Selena got pregnant and gave
birth to a boy on December 2003. Prior to their marriage, they had already lived together
under one roof due to Andrew’s insistence. However, they would soon return to their
respective homes as Andrew failed to find a job to support them notwithstanding his college
degree. For the second time, Andrew insisted on living together with Selena in the house of
Andrew’s mother. But it proved to be worse as Selena was treated like a servant. Despite
having a family, Andrew continued to be jobless even after a year of marriage. Since Andrew
failed to provide the needs of Selena and their son, Selena decided to escape together with
their son and subsequently, Selena filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity.
ISSUE
Is the respondent psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations which would warrant a declaration of nullity of his marriage with the
petitioner?
DISCUSSION
Andrew is not psychologically incapacitated.
Selena’s petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is anchored on Article 36 of
the Family Code which provides:
A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage,
shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
In Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21 (1995), the Court first declared that
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) judicial antecedence; and
(c) incurability. It must be confined "to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance
to the marriage."
In Dimayuga-Laurena v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159220, 22 September 2008, 566
SCRA 154, the Court explained:
(a) Gravity – It must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;
(b) Judicial Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating
the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
marriage; and
(c) Incurability – It must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved.
Respondent’s psychological incapacity is premised merely on his being jobless and
emotionally immature. Petitioner’s portrayal of respondent as jobless and irresponsible is
not enough. It must be shown that the parties be incapable of meeting their responsibilities
and duties as married persons, due to some psychological illness. What the law requires to
render a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity is downright incapacity,
not refusal or neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.1 The mere showing of "irreconcilable
differences" and "conflicting personalities" does not constitute psychological incapacity.2
As held in a long line of cases decided by the Supreme Court, the psychological
incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party
to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed
and discharged by the parties to the marriage.
1 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997, 268 SCRA 198.2 Id.
Petitioner failed to show that Andrew’s psychological incapacity to be so grave and
so permanent as to deprive him of the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
marriage. Moreover, the alleged psychological incapacity had not been clinically or
medically identified and not sufficiently proven by experts. While it was held in Marcos v.
Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000 that it is not required for the person alleged to be
psychologically incapacitated to be examined by a physician, it is imperative that there be
evidence that can adequately prove the party’s psychological condition. The incurability of
the alleged psychological incapacity was also not established. Andrew’s failure to find a job
does not equate to his incapacity to fulfill his marital obligations enumerated in Articles 68
to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code.
The petitioner had the burden of proving the nullity of his marriage with
respondent but failed to discharge it. This case does not anymore need an extended
argument to show that respondent is not psychologically incapacitated to comply with his
marital duties as a husband of the family.
In conclusion, we submit that Andrew is not psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations. If at all, Andrew was merely irresponsible and
emotionally immature, both of which are not equivalent to the psychological incapacity
contemplated by law. His being jobless, irresponsible and emotionally immature does not
mean that Andrew is suffering from grave psychological maladies that render him incapable
of complying with the essential obligations of marriage. Marriage is an inviolable social
institution and the foundation of the family 3 that the State cherishes and protects. While we
express sympathy with petitioner in her unhappy marital relationship with respondent,
totally terminating that relationship, however, may not necessarily be the fitting
denouement to it.
3 Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we respectfully move and pray to the
Honorable Court that the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between
SELENA GOMEZ-MAGALONA and ANDREW MAGALONA be DENIED.
Other reliefs, remedies, just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for.
City of Manila, March 22, 2011.
ROSALES AND POOTEN
LAW OFFICES
Counsel for the RespondentUnit 321-B Otto Towers
San Roque,Marikina City
By:
RICHARD ROSALESIBP. NO. 469854 valid until 2012/06-12-11/Manila
PTR. No. 1241/01-09-11/Mendiola, Manila Roll of Attorneys 77895
THERESE ABBAY POOTENIBP. NO. 365465 valid until 2012/06-12-11/Manila
PTR. No. 5678/01-09-11/Mendiola, Manila Roll of Attorneys 77896
EXPLANATION(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13)
of the 1197 Rules of Civil Procedure)
The foregoing Memorandum has been served personally to the Honorable Court as well as to the public prosecutor and registered mail to the Office of the Solicitor General as well as to the counsel for the respondent because of lack of office personnel to serve the same personally.
RICHARD ROSALESTHERESE ABBAY POOTEN
Copy furnished:
Prosecutor Carlo VargasOffice of the City ProsecutorManila
Office of the Solicitor General134 Amorsolo Street,Legaspi Village, Makati City
Atty. Vincent Balili (counsel for respondent)1241 Metropolitan AvenueMakati City, 1200 Philippines