REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

6thJUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 32
Iloilo City

MARIA FILIPINA BANIAGA Y CIVIL CASENO: 15566

ALONZO Petitioner,
FOR:
- versus -
DECLARATION OF NULLITY
JOSE ANDRES BANIAGA Y OF MARRIAGE UNDER
RIZAL ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY
Respondent. CODE
x-------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

PETITIONER, by the undersigned counsel and unto the Honorable Court,

most respectfully submits this Pre-trial brief:

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE

1. This is an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of

the Family Code.

2. Petitioner alleges in her Petition, viz: a) that petitioner and respondent are
husband and wife; b) that respondent is clinically found to be psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential requisites of marriage identified as
Responsibility Deficit Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD);
c) that the root cause of such illness is traced from respondent’s upbringing;
d) such illness is diagnosed to be grave and incurable; e) that such illness
existed prior to the marriage and became apparent at the time of marriage.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

3. The identity of parties: Maria Filipina A. Baniaga as petitioner and Jose

Andres R. Baniaga as respondent;

4. The fact of marriage, parties having been married on June 12, 2012.

5. That petitioner and respondent lived together in respondent’s parents’ house

for almost six (6) years;
 6. That no property was acquired by both spouses;

7. That a child was born to them;

8. That petitioner left with her son to live with her parents sometime in April
2017; and

9. That petitioner seeks the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground
of psychological incapacity.

LIST OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

“A” – The Marriage Contract of Maria Filipina Baniaga and Jose Andres Baniaga
dated June 12, 2012.

“B” – The Certificate of Live Birth of Luis Fernan A. Baniaga dated Decemeber 24,
2012.

“C” – The Psychiatric Report prepared by Dr. Jonifer Quiros to prove that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated.

ABSTRACT OF TESTIMONIES

MELCHORA SANTOS ALONZO, the mother of petitioner who will testify

on the relationship of the spouses and how are they as parents to their son.

AZIEL JOY SANCHA, a close and long-time friend of the petitioner and
respondent,who will testify on the relationship of the spouses as husband and wife.

DR. JONNIFER QUIROS, the psychiatrist who will testify on the

psychological report done on respondent.

TRISTAN H. JABINIGAY, the neighbor of petitioner at her parent’s house

who will testify on how petitioner was treated by her husband back in Iloilo City
and how respondent showed up after several months of being separated.

NUMBER OF WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

Four (4) witnesses.

RESERVATION

The Counsel for Petitioner respectfully reserves the right to present other
evidence and / or witnesses as the necessity thereof may arise.
 ADMISSIONS

Outside of the matters alleged, the Counsel for Petitioner is not inclined to
admit further matters.

APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

Art. 36. 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 and even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

The concept of psychological incapacity as a ground for nullity of marriage is

novel in our body of laws, although mental incapacity has long been recognized as
a ground for the dissolution of a marriage.

Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

In Republic v. Iyoy GR No. 152577, September 21, 2005, where therein

respondent preferred to spend more time with his friends than his family on whom
he squandered his money, depended on his parents for aid and assistance, and was
dishonest to his wife regarding his finances, the Court held that the psychological
defects spoken of were more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect"
in the performance of some marital obligations and that a mere showing of
irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitute
psychological incapacity; it is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet
their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be
shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological, not physical, illness.

Art. 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal
union or commits acts which tend to bring danger, dishonor or injury to the
other or the Family, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for relief.

In Toring v. Toring GR NO. 165321, August 03, 2010, the Supreme Court held
that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability, to be
sufficient basis to annul a marriage. The psychological incapacity should refer to no
less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive
of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged
by the parties to the marriage.

In Republic v. Martin Nikolai Z. Javier and Michelle K. Mercado-Javier, G.R.

No. 210518, April 18, 2018, the Supreme Court held that, as respondent Martin was
diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, with tendencies toward sadism.
The Psychiatrist concluded from the tests administered on Martin that this
disorder was rooted in the traumatic experiences he experienced during his
childhood, having grown up around a violent father who was abusive of his mother.
This adversely affected Martin in such a manner that he formed unrealistic values
and standards on his own marriage, and proposed unconventional sexual practices.
When Michelle would disagree with his ideals, Martin would not only quarrel with
Michelle, but would also inflict harm on her. Other manifestations include
excessive love for himself, self-entitlement, immaturity, and self-centeredness.
These circumstances, taken together, prove the three essential characteristics of
psychological incapacity on the part of Martin. As such, insofar as the psychological
incapacity of Martin is concerned, the CA did not commit a reversible error in
declaring the marriage of the respondents null and void under Article 36 of the
Family Code.

PROPOSED ISSUE

Whether or not respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the

essential requisites of marriage which is a valid ground under Art. 36 of the New
Family Code to declare the marriage a nullity.

AVAILABILITY FOR TRIAL

Counsel will be available for trial on dates convenient with this Honorable
Court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

July 2, 2019, Iloilo City.

ATTY. FLYNN AGUILAR

Counsel for the Petitioner
3rdFloor, JML Bldg.Jaro, Iloilo City
PTR No. 97439/February 12, 2017/ Iloilo City
IBP No. 63826/March 3, 2016/ Iloilo City
Roll of Attorney No. 398456
Under MCLE Compliance No.000087

EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Brief were served to respondent’s counsel through

registered special mail considering the distance between the address of defendant’s
counsel and the undersigned counsel. Moreover, the office of the undersigned has
no personnel to effect personal service to the defendants.