Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

(Family Court)
6 Judicial Region
Branch ___, Bacolod City

Civil Case No. ________



COMES NOW, Respondent JOHNDEL PENALOSA, through counsel, in

answer to the COMPLAINT dated September 30, 2014 which the respondent
received on October 1, 2014, most respectfully avers that:
(1.) Defendant Johndel a.k.a. JD Penalosa is of legal age, Filipino, and a resident
of 345 Ayala North Point Subdivision, Talisay City, Neg. Occ. For purposes of
this Answer, Defendant may be served with summons, writs and all court
processes at the office address of the undersigned counsel;
(2.) Plaintiff Clarissa de Belen Penalosa is of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of
123 Town and Country Subdivision, Talisay City, Neg. Occ., where she may
be served with summons, writs and all orders of the Honorable Court, it being
her last known address.
(3.) Defendant admit the allegations as set forth in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10
and 11 of the COMPLAINT dated September 30, 2014;
(4.) Defendant admit the contents of paragraph 4 only on the matter as to their
respective career but specifically denies that Defendant will use the alibi of
being busy and tired when in fact it was the Plaintiff who rejected his
invitation to spend time together;

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
(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
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:

Plaintiff being raised from a financially stable family has been a

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

these, communications between the Plaintiff and Defendant was severed

due to the insistent demands and baseless accusations made by the Plaintiff
on the Defendant. Defendant remained to be faithful, understanding and
true to his feelings towards the Plaintiff despite her occasional mood
swings, jealousy and unreasonable anxiety which greatly affect their

Plaintiff in one time admitted that due to the pressure as experienced

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;

Defendant specifically denies paragraph 7 and 13, stating that it is

impossible for the defendant to experience financial difficulty as alleged by

the Plaintiff i.e. borrowing money to the Plaintiff and using the same for a
drinking spree with friends; and failure to provide for the major expenses
specifically payment for the house loan. The said allegations is doubtful
and without valid basis. In several occasions, Defendant was asked by the
Plaintiff to pay for the home loan to which issuance of receipts were paid
under his name and this was kept by the Defendant and attached hereto

Defendant has been employed with ABC bank as a teller for seven

years and earning a net monthly salary of P 35,000.00 a month plus a

monthly allowance of P 5,000.00 (EXHIBIT 2).

Defendant upon being designated by the employer bank as Assistant

Manager (EXHIBIT 3) the Defendant receives an additional monthly

salary increment of P 15,000.00 and an additional monthly allowance of P
5,000.00; thus, total net monthly salary amounting to P 50,000.00 plus a
total monthly allowance of P 10,000.00.

The monthly income of the defendant as aforementioned is more

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.

Plaintiff Clarissa being an Executive Assistant of Convergys whose

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;

Defendant being the Assistant Manager of ABC Bank and whose

responsibilities requires an extended working hours will indeed entail the

Defendant to arrive late at night. However, there has been no occasion
wherein he will not come home to their conjugal abode. As aforementioned
by the Defendant, the Plaintiff works during night time and every time the
Defendant arrives home the Plaintiff has already left for work. Henceforth,
allegations made by the Plaintiff are based on hearsays and any doubts
occurring thereto and questioning the faithfulness of the Defendant in their
marriage is caused by her mood swings, jealousy and unreasonable

Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 14, 16,

and 18 of the complaints wherein Plaintiff presented evidences. Defendant

has no knowledge on the matters with regards to the text messages with one
named Evelyn Ruiz, a very compromising photos, facebook photos of
Evelyn Ruiz with caption thereof and other evidences as presented against
the Defendant. The same should be denied from being offered as evidences
due to its inadmissibility and questionable authenticity and genuineness;

Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 15 and 19

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);

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

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;

Defendant after several months and after taking into consideration

what had transpired, returned to their conjugal dwelling to explain and

reconcile with the Plaintiff. However, Defendant was refused entry thereof,
Plaintiff was hysterical when she saw the Defendant and remains to be firm
with her decisions;

Defendant despite exerting efforts to patch their broken relationship

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;

Defendant specifically denies the contents of paragraph 21 to 28, to wit:


Defendant is more than capable to provide for the necessary

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;
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

(f.) Defendant objected on leaving the conjugal dwelling. However, it was

the Plaintiff who refused to live with the Defendant and it was the
Plaintiff who ordered Defendant to leave her alone;
(g.) Defendant did not have any means of communication nor


connection with one named Evelyn Ruiz nor did the Defendant had any
knowledge of Evelyn Ruiz carrying their first born child;
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;

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

against respondent throughout her consultation with Dr. Samson.

(26.) The herein case further rely its decision on the pronouncements made in the
case of Republic v. Dagdag, Hernandez v. Court of Appeals and Pesca v.
Pesca, stating that:
6 | Page

In her testimony, the petitioner described her husband as

immature, deceitful and without remorse for his dishonesty, and lack of
affection. Such characteristics, however, do not necessarily constitute a
case of psychological incapacity, or to feel remorse for his misbehaviour, or
even to share his earnings with family members, are indicative of an
immature mind, but not necessarily a medically rooted psychological
affliction that cannot be cured.
Even the respondents alleged sexual infidelity is not necessarily
equivalent to psychological incapacity, x x x.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that judgment be rendered in
his favour by dismissing the Complaint.
Respondent likewise pray for such other and further relief or reliefs as this
Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.
Most respectfully submitted this 7th day of October, 2014 at the City of
Bacolod Philippines.
Counsel for the Defendant
2nd Floor V & A Building
Lacson Street, 6100 Bacolod City


Roll of Attorney No. 906112
IBP No. 240906 Bacolod City- April 3, 2010
PTR No. 958305 Bacolod City April 3, 2010
MCLE Compliance No.: EXEMPTED


I, JOHNDEL a.k.a. JD PEALOSA, of legal age, Filipino, after being

sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state that as the respondent in Civil
Case NO. _________ entitled CLARISSA DE BELEN PEALOSA v.
7 | Page

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.


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.


Roll of Attorney No. 122782
IBP No. 19387 Bacolod City March 3, 2011
PTR No. 10486 Bacolod City March 3, 2011
MCLE Compliance No.: EXEMPTED

8 | Page