Convulcin v.

Cometa
Civil Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 1 of 12

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City

GABBY CONVULCIN Civil Case No.

Petitioner, 1234
For:
-versus- DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF
SHARON COMETA and MARIAGE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------
---------x

TRIAL MEMORANDUM

The Private Respondent, Sharon Cometa, through

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

Prefatory Statement

xxx..the Constitution sets out a policy of

protecting and strengthening the family as the
basic social institution and marriage as the
foundation of the family. Marriage, as an inviolable
institution protected by the State, cannot be
dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for
the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of
proof to show the nullity of marriage lies on the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of
the existence and continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity. 1

-Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio

This instant petition was filed by the petitioner to

declare his nearly two years of marriage null and void on the
ground of private respondents Psychological Incapacity
based on Article 36 of the Family Code.

Narration of Events
1
Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, G.R. No. 171042, 30 June 2008.
 Convulcin v. Cometa
Civil Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 2 of 12

1. Petitioner and private respondent were schoolmates at

the New Era University where they both took up Law.
After a few years of courtship, they became
sweethearts. Petitioner avers that he tried to break up
with the private respondent but the latter refused. The
two continued their romantic encounters which
eventually made private respondent pregnant. They
were wed and lived in petitioners house in Manila.

2. Petitioner claims that private respondent remained

aloof and did not exert any effort to endear herself to
his family. He also claims that she never contributed to
the familys finances and refused to have sex. Later,
petitioner learned from private respondent that she had
a miscarriage which cause an intense altercation to
which petitioners mother tried to mediate but the
angry private respondent shouted Putang ina nyo, wag
kayo makialam! at her. Aggrieved, petitioners mother
asked them to leave the house.2

3. Private respondent left and did not come back anymore.

Petitioner said that he tried to communicate with
private respondent but to no avail. Petitioner, then, filed
a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with the
RTC of Manila. However, private respondent did not
participate in the proceedings despite summons.

The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

4. In its Decision, the trial court declared the marriage

between petitioner and private respondent void under
Article 36 of the Family Code. It found that private
respondent failed to perform the essential marital
obligations of marriage due to a personality disorder
called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 3

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)

5. On appeal by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),

the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. It held that
petitioner failed to establish, above all, that private
respondents alleged Narcissistic Personality Disorder

2
Records, p. 2.
3
Id.
 Convulcin v. Cometa
Civil Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 3 of 12

was the psychological incapacity contemplated by law

and that it was permanent and incurable. 4

6. Petitioner now comes before the Supreme Court to have

the CA decision reversed and the RTC decision
reinstated. He filed the instant petition against private
respondent and the Republic.

Sole Issue

Should the marriage between petitioner and private

respondent be declared void on the ground of Psychological
Incapacity?

Argument

The court is compelled to dismiss the petition because

the petitioner failed to establish with sufficient evidence the
basis for the Court to conclude that private respondents is
indeed psychologically incapacitated to comply with her
obligations as petitioners spouse.

I. Insufficiency of
evidence to prove
that private
respondent failed to
perform the
essential marital
obligations of
marriage due to a
personality disorder
equivalent to
psychological
incapacity

1. Psychological incapacity of any spouse is a ground for

the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code which states that:

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

4
Id.
 Convulcin v. Cometa
Civil Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 4 of 12

becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

(As amended by Executive Order 227)5

2. The psychological incapacity contemplated by Article

36 was explained in Yambao v. Republic of the
Philippines, as follows:

Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability

to take cognizance of and to assume basic
marital obligations and not merely difficulty,
refusal, or neglect in the performance of
marital obligations or ill will. This
incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true
inability to commit oneself to the essentials
of marriage; (b) this inability to commit oneself
must refer to the essential obligations of
marriage:..xxx; and (c) the inability must be
tantamount to a psychological
abnormalityxxx; it is essential that he
must be shown to be incapable of doing
so due to some psychological illness.

xxx

xxx the psychologically incapacitated spouse

must be shown to suffer no less than a mental
(not physical) incapacity that causes him or
her to be truly incognitive of the basic marital
covenants. It is a malady so grave and so
permanent as to deprive one of
awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond
one is about to assume. In this case, there
is no showing that respondent was suffering
from a psychological condition so severe that
he was unaware of his obligations to his wife
and family. xxx6 (emphasis supplied)

Hence, psychological incapacity of a spouse is not

established by mere refusal or neglect in the
performance of marital obligations or ill will. In order to
apply Article 36, the inability to commit oneself to the
essentials of marriage must be due to some

5
The Family Code of the Philippines, Article 36.
6
Yambao v. Republic of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 184063, 24 January
2011.
 Convulcin v. Cometa
Civil Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 5 of 12

psychological illness which must be mental and not

mere physical incapacity.

In Republic v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court

provided the following guidelines for the interpretation
and application of Article 36:

a) The burden of proof to show the

nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved
in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity.

b) 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.

c) The incapacity must be proven to be

existing at the time of the celebration of
the marriage.

d) Such incapacity must be also shown to be

medically or clinically permanent or
incurable.

e) Such illness must be grave enough to

bring about the disability of the party
to assume essential obligations of marriage.

f) The essential marital obligations must be

those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of
the Family Code as regards the husband and
wife as well as Articles 220, 221, and 225 of
the same Code in regard to parents and
their children.

g) Interpretations given by the National

Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be given
great respect by our courts.
 Convulcin v. Cometa
Civil Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 6 of 12

h) The trial court must order the prosecuting

attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General
to appear as counsel for the state. No
decision shall be handed down unless the
Solicitor General issues a certification, which
will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating
therein his reasons for his agreement or
opposition, as the case may be, to the
petition.7 (emphasis supplied)

In this case, the burden of proof to show the nullity of

the marriage belongs to petitioner. Any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of
the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This
is set out in our Constitution and laws to protect the
validity of marriage as the foundation of the family.

In the landmark case of Santos v. Court of

Appeals, we observed that psychological
incapacity must be characterized by (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. The incapacity must be grave or
serious such that the party would be incapable
of carrying out the ordinary duties required in
marriage; it must be rooted in the history of
the party antedating the marriage, although
the overt manifestations may emerge only
after marriage; and it must be incurable or,
even if it were otherwise, the cure would be
beyond the means of the party involved. 8
(emphasis supplied)

Petitioners statements that private respondent was

very shy, aloof and irresponsible is self-serving and
cannot be equated to an inability to perform the
essential obligations of marriage. Note that private
respondents refusal to have sex and her being aloof
could be due to her pregnancy. Nevertheless, no
sufficient evidence was shown to prove that the alleged
psychological incapacity of private respondent was
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability.

In Kalaw v. Fernandez, the Court stressed the

importance of opinions of experts:
7
Republic v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997.
8
Ochosa v. Alano, et al., G.R. No. 167459, 26 January 2011.
 Convulcin v. Cometa
Civil Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 7 of 12

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.9

Therefore, the trial court erred in ruling that

private respondent is suffering from Narcissistic
Personality Disorder equivalent to psychological
incapacity without the opinion of a psychologist
nor sufficient evidence which fully explain the
root cause of the disorder or the degree of its
gravity or permanence.

Reliefs

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the petition be
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Other reliefs just or equitable under the circumstances

are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Manila City, 09 February 2017.

DOE LAW FIRM

Address
Tel No.: 3456789

By:

John Doe
Counsel for Respondent
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
9
Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015.
 Convulcin v. Cometa
Civil Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 8 of 12

PTR No. 0987654/QC/ [date]

IBP Lifetime No. 23456
Admitted to the bar xxxxx