REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

LINDA MANASANSALA CRUZ,

petitioner

CIVIL CASE No. 1234567

-versus- FOR: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage

CESAR CRUZ,
respondent

Pursuant to the Notice of this Honorable Court,

Petitioner Linda Manasala Cruz

Through counsel respectfully submits their

APPELLANTS BRIEF

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT INDEX

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS/SUBJECT INDEX

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
V. STATEMENTS OF ISSUES
VI. ARGUMENTS
VII. RELIEF
 II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1. The trial court committed a reversible error in dismissing the complaint on

the ground that:

1.1) The defendant is not psychologically incapacitated to perform the

marital obligations of marriage, albeit the submitted clinical records
and evidences which prove that he is suffering mental disease/s
1.2) The findings of the petitioner are not sufficient to warrant the
declaration of the nullity of marriage

2. The trial court did not consider the testimony of the witnesses presented by
the petitioner

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

3. This is an appeal via petition for certiorari to this Honorable court for the
assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of City of Manila dated 1 February
2017 as stated in its dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, through the abovementioned circumstances on which the

presented evidences of the petitioner fail to substantiate that the alleged
mental diseases of the respondent, the petition for the declaration of the
nullity of marriage is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED1

4. This case was initially filed by Ms. Linda Manansala Cruz, the petitioner
and legal wife of Mr. Cesar Cruz, the respondent within the jurisdiction of the City
of Manila for the declaration of the nullity of marriage by the reason of
psychological incapacity of the latter.

1 Records at pp. 40-41, 1 February 2017 decision of RTC Branch of Manila

5. In the petitioners Complaint2, she alleged that the respondent has often
physically abused her and displayed unbearable behavior by being irresponsible
husband for being unemployed, staying vices with friends and its refusal to bear
children with the petitioner.

6. In the respondents Answer3, he subsequently affirmed some allegations of

the petitioner by stating that notwithstanding that he had been diagnosed with
Mild Egocentrism when he was (7) seven years old, in his defense, he stated that
mental disease has long been cured and does not affect to his status quo. Moreover,
he admitted that he does not in the meantime want to have children as they are still
in the adjustment stage of their marriage.

On the other hand, he denied that he has been unemployed by stating that he
had worked for (3) three months at Stark Industries, Inc. exhibited by Annex
A4, and that his mother, Mrs. Agnes Cruz had offered him a house as she did
not produced the title of the said lot.

He further stated in his defense that the alleged psychological incapacity of

the petitioner is very inconsistent to the actual traits portrayed by the person
suffering with Narcisstic Personality Disorder that those people are high
ambitious and crave for insatiable admiration5 when in fact he is only a
mediocre person who only finished a 2-year course in college.

7. On 17 January 2017, both parties were required by the trial court to submit
their respective Memoranda after the preliminary conference held on 10 January
2017 to exhaust their remedies that this Honorable court should consider as

2 See Complaint at par. 6-11

3 See Answer at par. 1-5

4 Stark Industries Inc. Certificate of Employment attached on the Answer

5 See Answer at par. 11

material sources for the determination of its decision. With this, the defendant
submitted his Memorandum.

8. On 28 January 2017, the preliminary hearing was held