Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
-versusJOHNDEL PEALOSA,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
ANSWER
1 | Page
(5.) Defendant admit the contents of paragraph 5 only on the matter that
Defendant did not communicate with the Plaintiff for several days but
specifically denies the portion that the defendant was involved with another
woman;
(6.) Defendant admit the contents of paragraph 12 only as to the fact that the
defendant will sometimes arrived late in the evening, but specifically denies
the portion that the defendant had missed coming home. Furthermore,
Defendant specifically denies allegations of having an illicit affair with
another woman nor was there any various withdrawals and used up credit
cards as explained in the Affirmative Defenses below;
(7.) Defendant qualifiedly admit portion of the allegations in paragraph 17 of
the complaint that a confrontation took place between the Plaintiff and
Defendant. However, the said confrontation took place when the Plaintiff
arrived home from her work and NOT when the Defendant arrived home
the next morning as contended by the Plaintiff. (Emphasis Supplied) The
Defendant specifically denies the allegation that He readily admitted to
the illicit relationship. (Emphasis Supplied) There was in fact no
admission that took place during the altercation between the spouses as
explained in the Affirmative Defenses below;
(8.) Defendant qualifiedly admit the allegations as set forth in paragraph 20 of
the complaint that they live separately but specifically denies the portion of
non-contribution in paying the home loan as explained in the Affirmative
Defense below;
(9.) Defendant specifically denies the contents of paragraphs 7, 13, 14, 15, 16,
18, 19, and 21 up to 28 for the reasons stated in the Affirmative Defenses
below.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the
foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that the Complaint
should be dismissed and further avers that:
(10.)
spoiled brat and always gets what she wants. She refuses to listen and hear
explanations and discussions. She always wanted to win the argument. With
2 | Page
in her work she had developed this mood swings and unreasonable
anxiety problem; thus, affecting not only their relationship but also her
health and emotional stability which explains her jealousy towards any lady
friend of the Defendant;
(12.)
Defendant has been employed with ABC bank as a teller for seven
than enough to pay for any family expenses, emergency expenses and other
miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, the allegations with regards to
borrowing money from the Plaintiff are baseless.
(16.)
work requires an evening shift from seven in the evening (7pm) until four
3 | Page
in the morning (4 am) and often requiring the latter to render an extended
time in her work due to the exigencies of her responsibilities as Executive
Assistant of Convergys;
(17.)
of the complaints where the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was
involved with a woman named Evelyn Ruiz, a 22-year old apprentice of
ABC bank. That the same is not true since Evelyn Ruiz who was once an
apprentice of the bank has already left the bank since February 2012,
signifying thereto her intention to work abroad (EXHIBIT 4);
(20.)
Plaintiff was the one who fabricated the issue of the illicit affair
involving with one Evelyn Ruiz. But the same is impossible since Evelyn
Ruiz had already left the bank and was not seen by the Defendant after she
left;
(21.)
Plaintiff Clarissa was the one who threatened the Defendant to leave
their conjugal dwelling. In one altercation that took place the Plaintiff
shouted to the Defendant Tama na ni, na kapoy na ko!! Indi ta na ka gusto
makita kag hinugay ka na di magpalapit sa balay liwat, layas!! (Lets stop
4 | Page
this, I am tired!! I dont want to see you anymore and dont you dare come
in this house again, go away!!) Despite Defendants objections with the
decision of the Plaintiff to leave her alone; however, the same was refused
by the latter;
(22.)
had failed in doing the same due to the constant rejections demonstrated by
the Plaintiff towards the Defendant. Furthermore, Plaintiff refused to
communicate nor settle their indifferences with each other; thus, there was
impossibility on the part of the Defendant to somehow live with her in their
conjugal dwelling;
(24.)
expenses of the family and therefore the allegation of the Plaintiff that
Defendant failed to pay for the home loan is without valid basis;
(b.) Defendant neither fabricated any stories nor attempted to borrow
money from the Plaintiff for his drinking spree with his buddies thus
allegation is without valid basis;
(c.)Defendant is more than willing to reconcile with the Plaintiff. However,
due to the ill-feelings that the Plaintiff had harboured towards the
Defendant, Plaintiff refused to give the Defendant another chance to
prove his love, sincerity and faithfulness towards the Plaintiff and to
their marriage;
(d.)
Despite the want of the Defendant to live with the Plaintiff it has
become an impossible chores for the Defendant due to the unwillingness
on the part of the Plaintiff to consider any reconciliation;
(e.) Defendant has no existing illicit affair with one named Evelyn Ruiz nor
to any other woman, evidences presented are merely fabricated by the
Plaintiff in order to free herself from any responsibility in the marriage
that they promised to be bound forever;
5 | Page
any
connection with one named Evelyn Ruiz nor did the Defendant had any
knowledge of Evelyn Ruiz carrying their first born child;
(h.)
Defendant despite efforts of reconciliation with the Plaintiff, his
offer to continue helping in the payment of their home loan was
impossible since it was the Plaintiff who refused to communicate with
the Defendant;
(25.)
The basis of the Plaintiff in filing for nullity of marriage against the
Defendant on the basis of psychological incapacity is without legal basis
and therefore should be dismissed on the ground that it lack the three basic
requirements as mandated by the Higher Court in Santos v. Court of
Appeals, to wit: psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (3) incurability. Granting if there
was any truth to the statements made by the Plaintiff, which is obviously
devoid from any truthfulness that it holds, the herein allegations lacks any
substantial compliance of these three requisites specifically on item no. 3;
(a) As stated in the case of Mendoza v. Republic, G.R. No. 157649,
November 12, 2012, the nullification of marriage due to psychological
incapacity filed by Mendoza against Dominic did not prosper. The
decision of the Supreme Court provides that: the Court DENIES the
petition for review on certiorari; and affirms the decision promulgated
on March 19, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 68615.
(b) Moreover, the decision of the Court of Appeals is clear in stating that:
the Court refuses to be bound by such finding, in view of the fact that
the witness findings, admittedly, were concluded only on the basis of
information given by the petitioner herself, who, at the time of the
examination, interview, was already headstrong in her resolve to have
her marriage with the respondent nullified, and harboured ill-feelings
VERIFICATION
JOHNDEL PEALOSA now pending before Branch ___, Regional Trial Court
(Family Court), Bacolod City, I caused the preparation of the foregoing ANSWER
WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES dated October 7, 2014, and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and based
on authentic records and documents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand this 7 th day of
October 2014 at Bacolod City, Philippines.
JOHNDEL PEALOSA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the date and at the place first
above-written by Johndel a.k.a. JD Penalosa with his Tax Identification Number
456-8900-004 issued on June 2, 2006.
8 | Page