Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 144 views

    Answer To Nullity

    Uploaded by

    nath
    This document is an answer filed in response to a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. It denies many of the claims made in the petition, such as the respondent being gay or confronting the petitioner about having a child. It admits to seeking psychological help due to depression after discovering the petitioner with another man. The answer asserts the petition fails to establish the element of incurability needed for annulling the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. It requests the court dismiss the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Answer To Nullity

    Uploaded by

    nath
    144 views4 pages
    This document is an answer filed in response to a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. It denies many of the claims made in the petition, such as the respondent being gay or confronting the petitioner about having a child. It admits to seeking psychological help due to depression after discovering the petitioner with another man. The answer asserts the petition fails to establish the element of incurability needed for annulling the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. It requests the court dismiss the petition.

    Original Description:

    Answer to Nullity

    Original Title

    Answer to Nullity

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an answer filed in response to a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. It denies many of the claims made in the petition, such as the respondent being gay or confronting the petitioner about having a child. It admits to seeking psychological help due to depression after discovering the petitioner with another man. The answer asserts the petition fails to establish the element of incurability needed for annulling the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. It requests the court dismiss the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    144 views4 pages

    Answer To Nullity

    Uploaded by

    nath
    This document is an answer filed in response to a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. It denies many of the claims made in the petition, such as the respondent being gay or confronting the petitioner about having a child. It admits to seeking psychological help due to depression after discovering the petitioner with another man. The answer asserts the petition fails to establish the element of incurability needed for annulling the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. It requests the court dismiss the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Republic of the Philippines

    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


    Third Judicial Region
    Branch 27
    Quezon City, Metro Manila

    MARIELOT D. GUTIERRES
    Petitioner,

    -versus-
    Civil Case No.
    For: Judicial Declaration of
    Nullity of Marriage

    RAMONITO D. GUTIERRES
    Respondent.
    x------------------------------x

    ANSWER

    DEFENDANT RAMONITO D. GUTIERRES, through


    undersigned counsel, to the Honorable Court, most
    respectfully avers the following:
    1. That he ADMITS the contents of paragraph 2 only
    insofar as his personal circumstances are concerned.
    2. That he ADMITS paragraph 3 and 4.
    3. That he DENIES paragraph 5, the truth of the matter
    being, that they are just only a business partners and
    a close friend as well and no other.
    4. That he DENIES paragraph 6, the truth of the matter,
    that it was only a gossip and he do not know the
    author of it, that the petitioner heard it from one of her
    friends who also working at the same company.
    5. That he DENIES paragraph 7, the truth of the matter
    being that he never confronted the petitioner and told
    that he is a gay. In addition, the petitioner was the one
    who always avoided conversations about having a
    child since she is not ready yet.
    6. That he DENIES paragraph 8 and 9, the truth of the
    matter being that it was the petitioner who initiated
    fights over petty matters and being aloof to the
    respondent.
    7. That he DENIES paragraph 10, the truth of the matter
    being, that it was the petitioner who is keeping a
    boyfriend. The respondent has been told by one of his
    friends that he saw the petitioner together with a man
    other than the respondent in a restaurant holding
    hands and exchanging kisses. Respondent asked the
    petitioner about the matter but she always denied it
    and would only dismiss the conversation.
    8. That he DENIES paragraph 11, the truth of the matter
    being that the respondent while driving home from
    work at around 8:00 pm was shocked when he saw the
    petitioner with another man, holding hands and
    exchanging kisses while entering a hotel. At that
    night, petitioner texted the respondent that she is with
    her parents house in Pasay City. Respondent knew
    that his wife was lying that time because she is with
    another man at the hotel. Frustrated from what he
    discovered, respondent tried to end up his life.
    9. The consultation with a psychologist is ADMITTED in
    paragraph 12. The respondents friends requested him
    to seek help from a psychologist regarding his state of
    depression which caused him to attempt against his
    own life. But respondent denies that it is sufficient to
    establish his supposed psychological incapacity and is
    not grave enough to prevent him from complying with
    essential marital obligations.
    10. The respondent by way of affirmative defense that
    the petition FAILS TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION. A
    cursory reading of the petition would show that it fails
    to allege the element of incurability. In the case of
    Santos v. CA, the Supreme Court enumerated the
    three requirements of psychological incapacity: (a)
    gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this


    Honorable Court that judgment be rendered dismissing the
    petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage between
    petitioner Marielot D. Gutierres and respondent Ramonito D.
    Gutierres for failure to show proof that it is null and void
    under Artile 36 of the Family Code.

    All other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.
    Quezon City, Philippines, September 27, 2016.

    KIEZEL S. FERRANCULLO
    Counsel for Respondent
    Roll No. 60320
    IBP No 893946/3-19-15/Pasay City
    PTR No. 2162937/5-10-15/Pasay City
    21-A E.Rodriguez St. Pasay City
    Commission No. 101167/Pasay City
    Until December 21, 2016
    MCLE Compliance No. V-00194569-04/25/16

    Copy furnished:

    ATTY. JOANNA D. SARTIN


    Roll No. 477586
    IBP No 873645/3-13-11/Manila
    PTR No. 8394/04-08-11/Manila
    Sartin, Sartin and Associates 234 V. Cruz, Manila
    Commission No. 101157/ Manila
    Until December 21, 2016
    MCLE Compliance No. V-00194390-04/20/11

    You might also like