REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Regional Trial Court

7th Judicial Region
Branch 22, Cebu City

LORELA A. ROJO,
Petitioner, CIVIL CASE NO. R-CEB-16-01402-CV
FOR: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
-versus-

CARLO JULIUS B. ROJO,

Respondent.
x-----------------------------/
DRAFT DECISION

Filed before this court is a verified Petition for Declaration of Nullity

of Marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines by
petitioner Lorela A. Rojo against the respondent Carlo Julius B. Rojo who is
her husband praying that after hearing a judgment be rendered declaring the
marriage as null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of the
respondent.

The petitioner stated among others in her petition and judicial

affidavit that:

1. They got married in a civil wedding held before the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, Branch 1, Capitol Site Cebu City as evidenced by the Certificate of
Marriage marked as Annex A.

2. Since their marriage until at present, petitioner and respondent bear no

child and there was no real properties acquired during their marriage.

3. Respondent was already psychologically incapacitated prior to the

celebration of the marriage but other traits to indicate incapacity to the
performance of marital obligations only became manifest after their
marriage as proven by the following facts and circumstances and to be
established by the testimony of the plaintiff, her witnesses and by the
psychologist as an expert witness.

4. Petitioner was working at MEPZA when respondent came along and was
1

introduced in all Departments as a company electrical engineer. From

Page

thereon, he accompanied her in going home and their courtship ended up

into sweet heart relationship.
5. Petitioner recalled prior to their marriage that when they are dating,
respondent was proud of sharing his good times with his ex-girlfriends and
even takes pride of showing to her accessories given by his ex-girlfriend as
token of their relationship which hurt petitioner in silent.

6. Weeks after their marriage, respondent went to Taiwan to work while

petitioner was left behind working at MEPZA. Not a single cent of
respondent’s salary was sent to the petitioner as according to him, he was
still paying his salary loan and no more money left on him because of huge
expenses. The glaring truth came to light when petitioner discovered that he
lost all his money to his mistress.

7. When petitioner fetched respondent in the airport from Taiwan, she

noticed that his eye was looking for someone, riveting around with her
wondering why. From thereon, she watched him calling and receiving calls
inside the comfort room. Petitioner realized that the other side of the phone
is the mistress from Ronda who arrived ahead than him.

8. Respondent is neglecting petitioner and spending most of his time with

his friends having a drinking spree acting as if a bachelor and got mad when
advised by her to stop of his vices. Unknown to petitioner, while she was at
work, respondent clandestinely meet with his mistress and even went to the
house of his mistress in Ronda introducing himself to the parents of the girl
as single and her boyfriend.

9. After petitioner discovered the location of said mistress, she and the
mother of the respondent went to the house of said mistress in Ronda and
they personally talked with the father of the girl who was very surprised and
threatened to cut off the head of the respondent because he lied to them
introducing himself as single.

10. The womanizing activities of the respondent resulted to frequent quarrels

which resulted to verbal and physical abuse. There was time that respondent
strike petitioner with a dress hanger because he was very mad with her
when advised not to go to the house of his mistress in Ronda due to the
threat of cutting his head.

11. Respondent’s relationship with his girlfriend from Ronda ended after he
discovered that there was a guy courting with his mistress from Ronda
which made him depressed.
2

12. The womanizing activities of the respondent did not end there. When he
Page

went back to Taiwan for another contract, he was carrying another

relationship with another girl who happened to be his workmate. Respondent
abandoned petitioner whom he cohabits. Their adulterous relationship
resulted to the birth of the child named as Ciaomhe Wendell Quiapo Rojo
wherein respondent acknowledge in the birth certificate as the father. A copy
of the birth certificate is hereto attached as Annex B.

13. Psychological assessment revealed that respondent was suffering a

psychological disorder which affected his ability to perform the basic
essential marital obligations of marriage as provided for under Article 68 of
the Family Code that is to observe mutual love, respect, fidelity, and render
mutual help and support. Said psychological incapacity is present even prior
to the marriage and only became manifest thereafter which is permanent,
grave, and incurable.

Despite having received of the summons and the Complaint with

Annexes in his address, respondent did not file an Answer the same within
the reglementary period. Hence, this Court directed upon motion the Office
of the Cebu City Prosecutor to investigate whether or not there existed a
collusion between the parties and to submit a report thereon. The report finds
no collusion between the parties. The Office of the Solicitor General
subsequently entered its appearance and authorized the Office of the Cebu
City Prosecutor to appear on its behalf in the trial of this case.

This Court is piloted under the proposed amendment of the Rules

under Rule 22 and 24 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner submitted a terms of
reference pursuant to the proposed Rules . Preliminary conference was
conducted wherein there are four issues for consideration for trial as follows.

1. Is the respondent remiss in his obligation as husband to the

petitioner?
2. Did the respondent commit marital infidelity towards petitioner?
3. Is the respondent psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations?
4. Is the respondent’s psychological incapacity characterized by
juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability?

The petitioner and her witnesses were presented during the face-to-
face trial of this case. On the questions propounded by this Court petitioner
testified that she married the respondent on 2001 and have been sweet hearts
for nine (9) months and were both twenty nine (29) years of age when they
got married; that they were not able to sire a child as they were just together
for a week after the marriage, then respondent left for Taiwan for the
employment contract for two years and when he came back still petitioner
3

did not get pregnant while together, however, not having a child has not
Page

been an issue to them; that respondent never gave money to petitioner even
until his return making a reason that he could not sent because he is still
paying the loans, petitioner did not insist to be given with the salary as she
was also working at MEPZA; she testified that all of respondent’s money
gone to his mistress named Honeylen Macachor; that when respondent came
back from Taiwan, they fetched him in the airport and she observed
respondent is looking everywhere as if looking for someone or something
and she observed that respondent was no longer her husband that she used to
know he seems to be cold already; that when respondent came back from
Taiwan, they stayed at Banawa for months but there were times that when
she came home, respondent was not there because he is with friend from
Taiwan and she could not sleep, so she called him and asked where he was
and he said that he was with his friends; they had fights and arguments so
much that respondent had to go back to Carcar and petitioner to stay in
Lapu-lapu; that by this time respondent was with his mistress name
Honeylen Macachor who came ahead of her husband; that petitioner and her
mother-in-law went to Ronda and talk to the father of the girlfriend of her
husband; that her mother-in-law introduced her to the father of Honeylen as
the wife of the respondent and the father was mad at the respondent because
he introduced himself as single; that petitioner told her mother-in-law about
their situation and when respondent was confronted by his mother-in-law,
the latter was mad and it lead to confrontation and quarrel in the family; that
aside from Honeylen, respondent was linked to Wendelen Quiapo as his
present girlfriend whom they had a child named Ciaomhe Wendell Quiapo
Rojo.

On the questions propounded by Fiscal Noel A. Cellona, petitioner

testified that as a wife, she made a follow up if respondent was already
eaten, what he wears to his office and they go to the office and their home
together every day and that sex life is not their problem; that she confronted
respondent during the time that he had a paramour and asked him why he
did that to her when she had been a good wife to him; that she tried to win
respondent back at first she was hoping that they could still be together, she
tried to come home on weekends and she made follow up even if she was
working, however, she didn’t feel respondent’s love towards her

Sherwin B. Servando who was presented as a witness on the questions

propounded by this Court testified that both the respondent and the petitioner
were his friends; that he had a good times with the respondent going out
with friends as they were drinking buddies and that respondent mentioned
the name of Honeylen during their drinking spree; that she saw one time
Honeylen before in Colon holding hands and very sweet and hugging
wherein he informed petitioner of what he saw; that with respect to the other
girlfriend of respondent whom he had a child, he saw her during the wake of
respondent’s aunt.

The other witness Lorena Sarnillo on the questions propounded by

4
Page

this Court testified that she know was also the friend of both petitioner and
respondent; that they used to live together in the same boarding house at
Sanciangco, she lived downstairs while respondent and petitioner lived
upstairs; they know the parties while they were sweethearts until they got
married; that respondent stated to confide with her problem and even once
told her that when her husband visited the Philippines and stayed with his
mother, and every time petitioner would go to their house on weekends, the
respondent would simply ignore her despite greeting him, good evening
Carlo. On the questions propounded by Fiscal Cellona, Lorena Sarnillo
testified that she know the respondent before their marriage as they stayed in
the same boarding house; that at the time she observed that the parties are
sweet, they would go to the together as respondent also worked at MEPZA.
However, other than this, she cannot think more of the respondent as after
respondent and petitioner got married, she was not meet Carlo (respondent)
because he left for Taiwan.

Ms. Rosemarie C. Gonato, a licensed psychologist on questions

propounded by this Court testified that while respondent was still single, he
had several relationships; and when he got to Taiwan, it was as if the
situation was simulated back to his being a bachelor because he was again
alone by himself in that foreign land and respondent is vulnerable who could
not fight; that even if respondent never went to Taiwan and he just stayed
with the petitioner, it would not be different given his vulnerability there is
always a possibility that he will be involved with another woman; that there
were reports aside from the infidelity that respondent being verbally abusive
to the petitioner especially hurling demeaning remarks towards her; that
respondent was also a very self-entitled and interpersonal exploitative; that
respondent manifested indifference like the coldness right after he arrived
from Taiwan, and then during the discovery of the affair he asked
forgiveness but still he continued to see the other woman; that essentially
respondent manifested the lack of empathy, the unwillingness to recognize
or identify the needs and feelings of his spouse and the respondent
manifested grandiosity specially when he boost about his conquest to his
friend and even to the petitioner.

Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner argued on his case insisting
that there was sufficient basis to nullify the assailed marriage on account of
respondent’s psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
Code.

In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity as

a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts, which are concededly not
endowed with expertise in the field of psychology, must of necessity rely on
the opinions of experts in order to inform themselves on the matter, and thus
enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and judicious judgment. Indeed
the conditions for the malady of being grave, antecedent and incurable
demand the in-depth diagnosis by experts ( Kalaw vs. Fernandez, G.R. No.
5
Page

166357, January 14, 2105)

Rosemarie Gonato, a licensed psychologist concluded in her report

that respondent had a personality disorder known as Narcissistic Personality
Disorder and manifested features consisted of this disorder. She stated that “
The respondent most major symptoms are being interpersonally exploitative
and lacking empathy with a tendency for self-entitlement. The respondent
seemed unwilling to recognize or identify the needs of the petitioner,
although he asked for forgiveness from what he did, he continued with his
ways. He is even indifferent to the plight and needs of his wife. He only used
his wife when he wanted to gratify his needs, a hallmark of being
interpersonally exploitative. He may be aware that she is suffering but he
could not empathize for her. This is because he sees himself as much more
important than the other people. The refusal to spend time with his wife only
indicates that he cannot be bothered and that his needs are much more
important than his family. This is a hallmark of being self-centered. His
womanizing is also a hallmark of exploitative behavior.”

The licensed psychologist found the disorder to be grave, severe

incurable and with juridical antecedence. She stated in her report that these
reported behaviors have been found out to impair some of the respondent’s
functioning such as in the emotional and personality aspect. The greater
impairment lies in the respondent’s interpersonal functioning which may
have started out earlier but became manifest when the respondent got
married. The anti-social personality of the respondent may have started way
back as an early adolescent reinforced by the environment and the culture in
which a person lives in. The respondent personality problem is deemed
severe because of the impairment it has caused on the respondent to fulfill
his marital obligation, it has also existed prior to the marriage because of the
subtle signs he had manifested before he got married to the petitioner. Prior
to the marriage the respondent already manifested subtle signs of lacking in
empathy and self-entitlement. This personality feature is already ingrained in
the individual and most people with the disorder will not acknowledge they
have problem making it impossible to cure or it may not be cured at all.

The Court finds for the petitioner. There is nothing on record to

controvert her evidence. All the issues presented were established in the
affirmative giving emphasis on the opinion of psychologist Ms. Rosemarie
C. Gonato whose expertise was admitted by the public prosecutor.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the marriage

between Lorela A. Rojo and Carlo Julius B. Rojo as null and void, an initio,
pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

Upon finality of the decision, let the Entry of Judgment be registered

in the Civil Registry of Cebu City
6
Page

SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, November 15, 2018.
JOSE NATHANIEL S. ANDAL
Assisting Judge