Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City
VICTOR F. ISLETA,

Petitioner- Appellee

-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. 109940

Marivic E. De Leon,

Oppositor-Appellant

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COME NOW OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable

Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff-Respondent Marivic E. De Leon is of legal age, married, and residing on Taiwan, where she may

be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Supreme Court;

2. Petitioner- Appellee Victor F. Isleta is of legal age and residing on Galangin, Tondo, Manila and may be

served with legal processes and other judicial notices thereto.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On March 10, 2006, herein Petitioner- Appellee filed a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

against his wife _____________.

2. On August 8, 2016, a Decision was rendered by Regional Trial Court of Malabon in favor of the Petitioner-

Appellee;
3. On June 1, 2017, a Motion for Reconsideration filed July 5, 2009 by Oppositor-Appellant through legal

counsel was denied by of the Regional Trial Court Malabon dated August 30, 2017;

4. On _________, a Petition for Review dated ___________ was filed to the Court of Appeals by

Oppositor-Appellant praying to set aside and assailed the decision of the Regional Trial Court;

5. On September 24, 2018, a direct Notice to File Brief and our Resolution was sent to the Petitioner-

Appellee.

6. On October 15, 2019, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Oppositor-Appellant.

7. Accordingly, the Honorable Supreme Court ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda

fifteen (15) days from notice, otherwise regardless whether or not Memoranda were filed, the petition shall be

submitted for decision;

Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8. Defendant- Petitioner seeks the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological

incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code against the Oppositor- Petitioner. It is note worthy that the

Petitioner- Appellee and the Oppositor- Appellant were lawfully married on May 19, 1997 and lived together.

9. At one point, the Oppositor- Appellant got into quarrel with the wife of the Petitioner- Appellee’s brother

over the use of water in their house. The petty quarrel turned into a fight which resulted to injuries to

Oppositor-Appellant .Thus, the Oppositor- Appellant got even more furious with the Petitioner- Appellee for

he is in the side of his brother-in-law’s wife.

10. In 1992, Oppositor- Appellant left the conjugal dwelling. The Petitioner- Appellee learned the following

year that Oppositor- Appellant was already working in Taiwan. Since then, Defendant- Petitioner lost contact

with the Oppositor- Appellant. Nevertheless, the Petitioner- Appellee exerted efforts to reach out the

Oppositor- Appellant and her family but to no avail.

11. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner- Appellee after the filing of a petition.The lower

court relied solely to the Psychological Evaluation Report of a psychologist alleging that the
Oppositor-Appellant is suffering from Inadequate Personality Disorder with dependency features, lack of

commitment, immature and narcissistic. The psychologist did not interview the Oppositor-Appellant and it

was based solely on thePetitioner- Appellee’s account.

III.ISSUE OF THE CASE

A.) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED CORRECTLY IN GRANTING THE

APPEAL OF THE SOLITOR GENERAL TO REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE

LOWER COURT.

IV.ARGUMENT

A.) The court committed no error in granting the appeal of the Solicitor General which accordingly, the

marriage of the Defendant-Petitioner and Oppositor- Appellant declared valid and subsisting.

V. DISCUSSION

A.) The Family Code of Article 36 provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, “at the time of the

celebration”, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations of marriage,

shall likewise be void even such if incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. In Yambao vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 184063) states that “Article 36 considers incapacity or

inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations as totally different from mere difficulty,

refusal, neglect or ill will in the performance of marital obligations.

In Marcos v. Marcos, it was no longer necessary for the defendant or respondent spouse to be personally

examined by a physician or psychologist under Article 36 of the Family Code so long as gravity, juridical

antecedence, and incurability can be duly established. Furtheremore, in Toring vs. Toring (G.R. No.

165321), it provides that the “psychological evaluation merely relied on Ricardo and Richardson’s

testimonies” which would not constitute psychological incapacity. The mere narration of the statements of

Ricardo and Richardson, coupled with the results of the psychological tests administered only on Ricardo,

without more, does not constitute sufficient basis for the conclusion that Teresita suffered from Narcissistic

Personality Disorder. While, in Medoza v. Republic (G.R. No. 157649), the findings the expert were

one-sided, self-serving and uncorroborated because only the petitioner was evaluated. The expert even
conceded that there was a need to verify her findings concerning Dominic’s psychological profile which were

colored by petitioner’s ill-feelings toward him during her evaluation. However, the Supreme Court ruled in

Halili vs Santos-Halili that the husband who suffered from Dependent Personality does constitute a

psychological incapacity. The husband was extremely attached to his parents and needs them to make

decisions for him, and the two did not really consider themselves married.

In this case, the Court of Appeals is correct to reverse the decision of the lower court that the

determination of psychological incapacity is strictly within the expertise of persons with the extensive training

on the matter. This is to uphold the clear decision in a jurisprudence that it is no longer necessary to introduce

expert so long as it uses a strict criteria or “straightjacket”. The psychologist or psychiatrist is not a

requirement anymore but it is advisable and it must be thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties. To

examine further the psychological report, it is only one sided because it was only the Petitioner-Appellee was

interviewed. Thus, it is insufficient, one-sided, self-serving and uncorroborated. The report must not be bias

and colored with ill-feelings toward the Oppositor-Apellant. The report must also involve the interview made

to the Oppositor- Apellant who was alleged to be suffering from Inadequate Personality Disorder. The mere

fact that this sole basis of the lower court will be inimical to the legal system of the state in the sense that it

does not uphold to the precedent jurisprudence.

The report shows that the Oppositor- Apellant have dependency features, and she lacks of commitment,

immature and narcissistic. In the precedent jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled that Dependent

Personality Disorder of the husband does constitute a psychological incapacity which is it cannot be applied in

this case. The Oppositor- Apellant was not dependent because it is clear that she went to Taiwan to work

which she can decide in her own ways. Being immature and narcissistic are not grounds of psychological

incapacity and lack of commitment is evidently a mere refusal or neglect as provided by jurisprudence.

PRAYER
 WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable Supreme Court that the

decision of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed and denied the petition for nullity of marriage filed for

being clearly unmeritorious.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Bagiuo City, Philippines. November 7, 2019.