Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

Pasay City
Branch 119

Jocelyn M. Suazo

Civil Case No. 97-1282

- versus- For: Declaration
of Nullity of
Marriage under
Art. 36 of the
Family Code of
the Philippines
Angelito Suazo

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

For the Plaintiff

COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and
presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:


On October 8, 1997 plaintiff filed a petition for declaration of nullity

of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code against herein defendant.

On March 29, 1998, defendant received summons issued by the

Honorable Court to file an answer.

Defendant failed to file his answer against the plaintiff.

Defendant also failed to be present in the psychological examination

conducted by Dr. Nedy Tayag herein witness produced by the plaintiff.

On October 18, 1998, preliminary conference was held in the presence

of the plaintiff, the Solicitor General who opposed plaintiff’s petition, and
plaintiff’s counsel.

Accordingly, after presentation of evidences, the Honorable Court

ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda fifteen days (15)
days from notice, otherwise, the case shall be deemed submitted for


Jocelyn and Angelito Suazo were once only lovers in Bian, Laguna
but an incident involving them to be missing for 3 days whilst with friends
in Manila had some kind of impactful force to Jocelyn’s parents that made
them force the two lovers to marry albeit the lover’s very young age. This
started the marriage between Jocelyn and Angelito on March 3, 1986.
After one year and four months, Jocelyn left Angelito on July 1987
because the former believed that the latter is psychologically incapacitated to
perform his marital obligations in accordance to the former’s needs. Angelito
being jobless, a drunkard, and a frequent gambler was enough for Jocelyn to
believe that her marriage was a mess and decided to leave Angelito and his
home as well as her job as a maid servant to one of Angelito’s relatives.
Also for Jocelyn, being considered as a maid and having a husband of
such nature was tantamount to abuse notwithstanding the fact that Angelito
frequently battered Jocelyn after their regular arguments at night
notwithstanding also the nights where Angelito would hit Jocelyn because he
was drunk.
To further support her case. Jocelyn consulted a psychologist and
successfully was provided a report regarding the fact that Angelito was
indeed an anti-social coupled with the fact that such disorder was chronic,
grave, and incurable and that Angelito was never interested in giving Jocelyn
the love that he ought to give among others.


1. Whether or not Angelito Suazo is psychologically incapacitated.

2. Whether or not Dr. Nedy Tayag’s testimony on Angelito’s mental
health is valid even without examining Angelito himself.


1. That Angelito Suazo is psychologically incapacitated and falls

within the provisions of the law specifically Art. 36 of the Family
Code and further elaborated by the Supreme Court in Republic vs.
Court of Appeals and Molina, 268 SCRA 198 and also falls within
the elements of psychological incapacity as stated by the same
Court in Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019.
2. That Dr. Nedy Tayag’s medical report on Angelito Suazo is valid
even if he was not present in the examination as supported by the
Supreme Court’s decision in Marcos vs Marcos G.R. No. 136490
in elaboration of the decision in Republic vs. Court of Appeals and
Molina, 268 SCRA 198.

1. It is necessary to emphasize the importance of Art. 36 of the
Family Code in this case which states that:
“Art. 36. 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. (As
amended by Executive Order 227).”
As stated in Nedy Tayag’s medical report, the defendant is from a
dysfunctional family with a drunkard father who gambles and
does illicit relationships. The qualities of the father are,
unfortunately, mirrored by the defendant in all fours in this case
and there is no denying that at the time of the plaintiff and
defendant’s celebration of their marriage such psychological
incapacity was already apparent to the defendant and manifested
fully only after the solemnization when defendant started to be
fully engrossed in drinking, gambling, and battering his wife while
also committing an illicit relationship with another woman.

In Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, 268 SCRA 198 the
court stated that:
“2. The root cause of the psychological
incapacity must be (a) medically or
clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
requires that the incapacity must be
psychological – not physical, although
its manifestations and/or symptoms may
be physical. Expert evidence may be
given by qualified psychiatrists and
clinical psychologists.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be
existing at “the time of the celebration”
of the marriage. The evidence must show
that the illness was existing when the
parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The
manifestation of the illness need not be
perceivable at such time, but the illness
itself must have attached at such
moment, or prior thereto.
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to
be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard
to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same
sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must
be relevant to the assumption of
marriage obligations, not necessarily to
those not related to marriage, like the
exercise of a profession or employment
in a job.”
The psychological incapacity of the defendant is medically
identified as proven by the medical report, the same has been
alleged in the complaint, and procured from a psychologist – an
expert on the matter and that the disorder is not physical but
psychological. As stated by Dr. Tayag, the defendant has an Anti-
Social disorder realized from his dysfunctional family which is
shown to be within the characteristics needed for psychological
incapacity to be viable as stated in Santos vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 112019, as shown by its a) gravity, b) juridical
antecedence, and c) incurability that “The disorder is chronic and
long-standing in proportion and appear(s) incurable. The disorder
was present at the time of the wedding and became manifest
thereafter due to stresses and pressure of married life. He
apparently grew up in a dysfunctional family.” As stated in Dr.
Tayag’s report.
2. In Marcos vs Marcos G.R. No. 136490, it is stated that the three
basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos v.
Court of Appeals: ‘psychological incapacity must be characterized
by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability
apparently does not require that a physician examine the person
himself for such characteristics to be declared psychologically
incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be ‘medically or
clinically identified.’ What is important is the presence of evidence
that can adequately establish the party's
psychological condition. “For indeed, if the totality of evidence
presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person
concerned need not be resorted to.” As such, in this present case it
is crystal clear that even in defendant’s absence in the medical
examination, the report of the expert, if the same is adequate,
would still constitute valid testimony to defendant’s incapacity.


With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the plaintiff, through his
counsel believes that the defendant has psychological incapacity and that the
medical report purporting the same is valid and adequate.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff respectfully prays to
the honorable court that judgment be rendered in his favor as follows:

1. An order be issued by this Honorable Court granting the annulment

of marriage between plaintiff and defendant;

2. Judgment be rendered upholding the validity of Dr. Tayag’s medical


Some other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Pasay City, Metro Manila, October 08, 1997.


Counsel for the Plaintiff
2/F RPV Bldg., cor. Marquitos
And Blumentritt St., Sampaloc



PTR No. ______
Roll No.
MCLE Compliance No.


In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court,

personal service of copy of Trial Memorandum could not be effected except
by service through registered mail due to distance and personnel constraints.


Copy Furnished:(By Registered Mail)


Counsel for Defendant
Unit 100, FICC Business Center.
276 El Grande Ave, BF Homes,
Parañaque, Metro Manila