REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATINAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 1, Mandaluyong City

Presiding Judge:

HON. RUSTICO MEDINA

CALENDAR OF CASES

Civil Case No. 761612 DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE Oral Argument

CRISTETA AQUINO-YAP, Petitioner, versus JAMES YAP, Respondent. ATTY. REYNALDO F. SEGUBIENSE Counsel for the Petitioner ATTY. ALEXANDER S.ABAD Counsel for the Respondent MANUEL MENDOZA, Plaintiff, versus BENIGNO CRUZ, Defendant. ATTY. EIFFEL Q. ISIDORO Counsel for the Plaintiff ATTY. ZANDER J. PLAZA Counsel for the Defendant JENNYLYN MERCADO, Petitioner, versus PATRICK GARCIA, Respondent. ATTY. REYNALDO F. SEGUBIENSE Counsel for the Petitioner ATTY. JOSEPH R. CABILES Counsel for the Respondent

Civil Case No. 246810 RECONVEYANCE OF REAL ESTATE Oral Argument

Civil Case No. 121676 PETITION FOR SUPPORT Oral Argument

Civil Case No. 110309 LEGAL SEPARATION Oral Argument

KIM CHIU-ANDERSDON, Petitioner, versus GERALD ANDERSON, Respondent. ATTY. CICERO D. JURADO III Counsel for the Petitioner ATTY. CYRIL H. MANALO Counsel for the Respondent

CYRIL H. MANALO Clerk of Court

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 1, Mandaluyong City

MA. LUISA P. TOLENTINO, Petitioner, -versusCivil Case No. 110309 For: Declaration for Annulment of Voidable Marriage under Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines

EMMAN S. TOLENTINO, Respondent, X----------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

Respondent, EMMAN S. TOLENTINO, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits his memorandum and states that:

I STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case for Annulment filed by the herein petitioner MA. LUISA P. TOLENTINO against the herein respondent EMMAN S. TOLENTINO before this Honorable Court on Aug 5, 2011.

II STATEMENT OF FACTS
(BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE PARTIES RESPECTIVE CLAIMS) Petitioner 2.1) Petitioner believes that their marriage be judicially annulled on the ground of fraud and that the fact of the respondents drug addiction was concealed from her prior to marriage and that respondents father upon the egging of the petitioner confided to her that the respondent has been into the use of illegal drugs for about five (5) years now and the respondent was already brought to a rehabilitation center twice and that when the petitioner and respondent met the first time, the respondent had just been out from the rehabilitation center for just about a week.

2.2)

She asserts that the respondent was always going out with his friends and most often arrives in their rented room at dawn the following day.

2.3)

She further asserts that the respondent celebrated his birthday with friends in the apartment where the petitioner and respondent are staying and after the party, respondent and his friends stayed inside our rented room and petitioner discovered that respondent and his friends are sniffing something from a foil being heated with a disposable lighter and that it was shabu.

2.4)

The petitioner also claims that she could to understand the condition of the respondent but from April 2010 up to the time that he left her in June 2010, the respondents addiction has become more pronounced and had become violent every time the issue of his indulgence to illegal drugs is brought about in their talks.

Respondent 2.5) Respondent EMMAN S. TOLENTINO specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 4 of the complaint which is also the same facts stated in parag. 2.2 of this memorandum, the truth being that Respondent and petitioner were living in the house of the respondents parents and that after the wedding they are one big happy family living together with respondents parents and siblings at 129 Bangkal Makati City. 2.6) Respondent specifically denies the allegation he and the petitioner celebrated birthday at an apartment with friends of the respondent, the truth being that Respondent and petitioner checked-in in a hotel in the City of Makati , namely Rosebelle Hotel , during the Respondents birthday, such is covered by authenticated copy of Hotels records and receipts purporting said visit by the respondent and petitioner , submitted under ANNEX A, which denies the Petitioners claim of the activities that occurred on said date. 2.7) Respondent specifically denies that he concealed the fact of his drug dependency prior to their marriage and further denies that he is still drug dependent until now and respectfully submits to the truth that he has been certified by a qualified and reliable drug testing company to be free from shabu or any form of drug dependency prior to their marriage , respondent being an employee in a call center has been previously randomly chosen to undergo drug test, and that Respondent has divulged from the very beginning of their relationship about his previous drug addiction, and that Petitioner knows of the previous involvement of the former on the usage of drugs and of the fact that the Respondent has been released from rehab

2.8)

Respondent also believes that his marriage with the petitioner should not be annulled as the basis sited for on the complaint doesnot exist either prior or after the celebration of the marriage.

2.9)

The respondent further submits that there has been a free and voluntary cohabitation of the petitioner and the respondent, Petitioner with full knowledge of the facts pertaining to Respondents previous drug addiction, destroys the claim of the petitioner of concealment as defined on Article 45 of the Family Code.

III ISSUE
3.1) Whether or not the marriage of the spouses should annulled on the ground

of concealment.

IV RESPONDENTS SUBMISSION
Respondent EMMAN S. TOLENTINO respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered dismissing the petitioners petition for Annulment of Marriage on ground of Fraud, hence, he is entitled to damages, attorneys fees, costs and litigation expenses due to this baseless complaint which has been causing the defendant embarrassment, humiliation, wounded feelings and other sort of disturbances.

V ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Between the herein petitioner and the herein respondent, the latters (respondent) petition should be granted. Under the Family Code, Art. 45 and 46. The petition for Annulment of Marriage shall be denied on any of the following grounds: 5.2 Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

5.3

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;

5.4

(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

5.5

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

5.6

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

5.7

(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or

5.8

(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. (85a)

5.9

Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:

5.10

(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;

5.11

(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband;

5.12

(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or

5.13

(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.

5.14

Thus, when the basis for said annulment of marriage grounded on concealment of drug addiction does not exist the petitioners prayer should be stricken down as pieces of evidence submitted proves that no such concealment occurred either prior nor at the time of existence of marriage.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after hearing, judgment be rendered dismissing the petitioners petition for Annulment of marriage grounded on Concealment of drug addiction. Respondent also prays the petitioner be ordered to pay the respondent the amount of: (a) Php 300,000.00 for moral damages, (b) Php 50,000.00 for exemplary damages, (c) Php 25,000.00 as attorneys fees plus Php 5,000.00 per hearing as appearance fee, and (d) not less than Php 150,000.00 as litigation expenses. Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. Mandaluyong City 01 October, 2010.

Cos de lara Law Offices Counsel for Respondent 8th Floor, Aloha Tower, Cactus St., Makati City

by:

ATTY. LILIBETH COS Counsel for Respondent IBP No. T789456; 1/16/2011 PTR No. T741852; 1/16/2011 ATTY. CHARLEY MARIE V. DE LARA Corroborating Counsel for Respondent IBP No. T789456; 1/16/2011 PTR No. T963852; 1/16/2011

Copy furnished by registered mail: (Registry Receipt attached) The Clerk of Court RTC, Branch 1 Mandaluyong City

Rolando Asuncion Counsel for Petitioner 6996 Jurado Bldg., Hustisya Rd., Mandaluyong City Mark Boado Corroborating Counsel for Petitioner 6996 Jurado Bldg., Hustisya Rd., Mandaluyong City

EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) The foregoing Memorandum for the Respondent has been filed with this Honorable Court and copies hereof has been served to the other party and/or his counsel by Registered Mail because of time constraint, distance, and the lack of available messengers to personally serve the same.

ATTY. LILIBETH COS ATTY. CHARLEY MARIE V. DE LARA