Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 34, Manila
TERESITA I. TRANCE,
Petitioner,
-vs-

CIVIL CASE NO. 0342

For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
Marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code

ROMAK TRANCE,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ANSWER

Respondent ROMAK TRANCE, through the undersigned counsel, and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully files his Answer in response to
the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, to wit

1. That respondent ADMITS paragraph

circumstances are concerned;

insofar

as

his

personal

2. That respondent ADMITS paragraph 3;

3. That respondent ADMITS paragraph 4 (F) that he and herein petitioner got
married on 21 January 2001 in Pasay City, but deny the rest of the
allegations in paragraph 4 as herein respondent is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the averments
thereof;

4. That respondent ADMITS paragraph 5 as to the consultation made before

Dra. Del Mundo;

5. That respondent DENIES paragraph 6 for being self-serving;

6. That respondent DENIES paragraph 7 that he is suffering from Anti-Social

and Narcissistic Personality Disorder and that such personality disorder is
grave enough to prevent him from complying with the essential marital
obligations;

7.
8.
9. 16.2 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Respondent did
have his reasons for getting angry at the Petitioner and that it wasthe
latter who had locked herself up in the bathroom.
10. 19.2 is DENIED insofar as the Respondents supposed act of forcing
the Petitioner to drink the water is concerned.
11. 21 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had
sexual liaisons with other women is concerned.
12. 22 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being that the Petitioner had
requested the Respondent to engage in sexual intercourse with her.
13. 24.1 is DENIED, insofar as the allegation that the Respondent had
sexual intercourse with his masseur is concerned.
14. 25 is ADMITTED, insofar as the heated altercation is concerned. But it
is averred that the Respondent was likewise the victim of battery inflicted
by the Petitioner.
15.

25.1 is DENIED, the truth of the matter being as follows:

15.1.
Petitioner and Respondent were inside their car, parked along
Roxas Boulevard. Petitioner unnecessarily and unexpectedly raised the
issue regarding the Respondents children. Specifically, the Petitioner
expressed her desire to send them away from the family home.
Petitioner then used profane and derogatory language to describe the
said children, cursing their very existence. The Respondent tolerated
the Petitioners behaviour for five (5) minutes, upon the lapse of which
he demanded the latter to desist. In response, the Petitioner slapped
and punched the Respondent, for which reason the latter was
prompted to strangle her. However, the Petitioner bit the Respondents
wrist and was thus able to escape.
15.2.
The Petitioner ran away from the car and the Respondent
followed her, demanding that she return. As the Petitioner ran, she
turned her head to voice her refusal. This prevented her from seeing
the light post ahead, which she ran into and hit her head. Forced into a
stop by the pain, the Petitioner was quickly taken by the Respondent
and brought to a hospital.
16. 27 on the consultation with Dr. Navarro is ADMITTED. But the
Respondent DENIES that it is sufficient to establish his supposed
psychological incapacity. The Respondent DENIES that Narcissistic

Personality Disorder is grave enough to prevent him from complying with

the essential marital obligations.
17. The Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defense that the
petition FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.
17.1.
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. 1
17.2.
While 29 alleges juridical antecedence and 32 alleges gravity,
NOWHERE IN THE PETITION IS IT ALLEGED THAT THE SUPPOSED ROOT
CAUSE OF THE RESPONDENTS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS
PERMANENT OR INCURABLE.
17.3.
The Respondent thus respectfully prays that the petition be
dismissed for FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition be dismissed for
failure to state a cause of action.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
_____________, Philippines, __Date__.
VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Respondent
14th Floor Philamlife Tower
8767 Paseo de Roxas
Paseo de Roxas, Makati City
Tel. No. 702-5930 to 02
Email: vloffice@gmail.com
By:
CHRISTOPHER
JOHN
VIRTUCIO
Roll No. 37489
IBP
No.
457133/1-32014/Manila
PTR
No.
32414131/1-32014/Manila
Copy hereof received ______ this _________ day of ___________, ____________
JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Petitioner
VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Respondent
COPY FURNISHED:
JHOCSON ESPIRITU & KARIM
LAW OFFICE
1310 Phil. 21 (1995).

Counsel for Petitioner

27th Floor Trafalgar Bldg.
888 H.V. Dela Costa St., Makati City
Tel. No. 800-0001 to 04
Email: firmjek@jeklaw.com.ph
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Makati City

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Manila City