REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 4
FAMILY COURT
QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA

GABBY CONVULCIÓN CIVIL CASE NO. xxx

Plaintiff,

-versus-

SHARON COMETA, “Declaration of NULLITY

Accused. OF MARRIAGE under Article
x----------------------------------------------x 46 of the Family Code”

TRIAL MEMORANDUM

The Petitioner, GABBY CONVULCIÓN, through undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully submits his Trial
Memorandum, as follows:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“The Family Code provides that the “nature, consequences, and

incidents (of marriage) are governed by law and not subject to stipulation,”
but this does not go as far as reaching into the choices of intimacy inherent
in human relations. These choices form part of autonomy, protected by the
liberty and human dignity clauses. Human dignity includes our choices of
association, and we are as free as an associate and identify as we are free not
to associate or identify.”
-Justice Justice Marvic Leonen

Man has not invented the reliable compass by which to steer a

marriage in its journey over troubled waters. Laws are seemingly
inadequate. Over time, much reliance has been placed in works of the
unseen hand of Him who created all things. Who is to blame when a
marriage fails?
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a petition filed by GABBY CONVULCIÓN for

Declaration of Nullity of his marriage to respondent SHARON
COMETA. The petitioner brought this action based on Article 36 in
relation to Articles on 68, 69, 70 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

Gabby Convulción and Sharon Cometa were schoolmates at the

New Era University where they both took up Law. Gabby courted
Sharon and became sweethearts after a few years. Sharon was very
shy when around Gabby’s family. To bring her closer to his family,
Gabby invited Sharon to attend family gatherings and other festive
occasions. Sharon tried to avoid Gabby’s invitations. If attending
such occasions, Sharon was aloof or snobbish. She never tried to get
close to any of Gabby’s family members.

Gabby tried to break up with Sharon, but Sharon refused and

offered to accept Gabby’s relationship with another woman. They
continued to see each other on a friendly basis. While they tried to
keep their meetings friendly, Gabby and Sharon had several romantic
encounters. Later, Sharon informed Gabby that she was pregnant
with his child. Gabby reluctantly agreed to marry Sharon upon the
prodding of his mother. Gabby and Sharon have immediately wed by
the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.

After the wedding, Gabby and Sharon lived in Gabby’s house

in Manila. Sharon remained aloof and did not exert any effort to
endear herself to Gabby’s family. Sharon never contributed to the
family’s finances leaving Gabby to shoulder all their expenses. She
refused to have sex with Gabby. Despite Sharon’s claim of being with
child, Gabby never observed any symptom of pregnancy in her. Even
her officemates saw no such signs after being asked by Gabby.
Sharon did not go home for a day, and when she came home, she
announced to Gabby and his family that she had a miscarriage.

A confrontation ensues for the alleged miscarriage of Sharon. It

then became an intense altercation that woke up the entire house.
Gabby’s mother tried to mediate but Sharon shouted “Putang ina nyo,
wag kayo makialam” at her. Because of this, Gabby’s mother asked
them to leave her house. Sharon left Gabby’s house and did not come
back anymore. Gabby tried to communicate with Sharon after the
altercation but to no avail. Since Sharon failed to discharge the basic
and essential obligations of marriage and blatantly not
communicating and manifest herself, the petitioner filed for a
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent is psychologically incapacitated

to comply with the essential marital obligations which would
warrant a declaration of nullity of marriage with the petitioner.

DISCUSSION

Sharon Cometa is psychological incapacitated.

Gabby’s petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is

anchored under 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 that after

their wedding, Sharon had strongly refused to have sex with Gabby
and it is clear and established that Sharon demonstrated an utter
insensitivity and inability to give meaning and significance to the
sanctity of marriage. Procreation is also an essential marital
obligation considering that such obligation springs from the
universal principle that procreation of children through sexual
cooperation is the basic end of marriage (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of
Appeals, 78 SCAD 57, 266 SCRA 324). It is well-founded that even
before their marriage, Sharon avoid Gabby’s family. She intentionally
avoids Gabby’s invitations to family gatherings and festivities. And
in such occasions, Sharon was aloof or snobbish.

"Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage

under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a
mental – not merely physical – incapacity that causes a party to be
truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly
must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage
which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, among
others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love,
respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any
doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning
of "psychological incapacity" 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 relation to Article 36 of the Family Code, the respondent

Sharon failed to fulfill one her obligation as contemplated under
Article 68 of the Family Code. For a long time after their marriage,
she failed to observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
support. As shown under the Material Facts, Sharon remained aloof and
did not exert any effort to endear herself to Gabby’s family. Sharon never
contributed to the family’s finances leaving Gabby to shoulder all their
expenses. She refused to have sex with Gabby. Despite Sharon’s claim of
being with child, Gabby never observed any symptom of pregnancy
in her. Even her officemates saw no such signs after being asked by
Gabby.

In relation to Article 36 of the Family Code, Article 68, par. 2 of

the Family Code states:
 “…The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the
latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling
reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if
the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family.”

It is strongly established under the facts that the respondent

failed to live together with the petitioner. A confrontation ensues for
the alleged miscarriage of Sharon. It then became an intense
altercation that woke up the entire house. After the altercation,
Sharon left Gabby’s house and did not come back anymore. Gabby
tried with his earnest effort to communicate with Sharon but to no
avail. After nearly two years of marriage, Gabby filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage with the RTC of Manila. Despite
summons, Sharon did not participate in the proceedings.

As stated under Article 68 (2) of the Family Code, “the court

may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should
live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the
exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is
not compatible with the solidarity of the family.” Sharon left Gabby’s
house for two years, it is clear that there are no valid and compelling
reason for not to live with her spouse.

This case does not anymore need an extended argument to

show that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply
with her marital duties as a wife of the family. In conclusion, we
submit that Sharon Cometa is psychological incapacitated to comply
with the basic and essential marital obligations. Sharon Narcissistic
Personality Disorder render her incapable of complying with the
essential obligations of marriage.

PRAYER
 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 GABBY CONVULCIÓN and
SHARON COMETA be GRANTED.

Other reliefs, remedies, just and equitable in the premises

are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, February 21, 2020.

                 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21st day of

February 2020 in Quezon City, Metro Manila.

Doc.No.; _____  
Page No.; _____
Book No.; _____
Series of 2020.