ENRIQUE ADOLFO C.

SAN JUAN
PLM JURIS DOCTOR, FIRST YEAR, BLOCK 1

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS

MOCHA USON,
Appellant, CA GR CV NO. 123456
RTC CIVIL CASE NO. 123
-versus- For: Petition for the
Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage

COFFEE USON
Appellee.

Pursuant to the

Notice of this Honorable Court,

Plaintiff-Appellant

Mocha Uson

by counsel, respectfully submits her

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

1
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE_____________________PAGE

Marcos vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000 18

Republic v. Court of Appeals (268 SCRA 198) 13-15

Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995 13

PHILIPPINE STATUTE_____________________________PAGE
Family Code of the Philippines, Article 36 13

Family Code of the Philippines, Article 68 13

2
 SUBJECT INDEX

I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS 4

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4

IV. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 4

V. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES 4-5

VI. APPEALED DECISION 5

VII. STATEMENT OF FACTS 5-10

VIII. ISSUES 11

IX. ARGUMENTS 11-16

X. RELIEF 16

XI. APPENDICES 17

3
 II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE

ERROR IN DECLARING THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY WAS NOT MANIFESTED BY THE
DEFENDANT DURING HIS MARRIAGE WITH THE
PETITIONER.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
APPELLANT FOR LACK OF MERIT.

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal to the decision rendered by the trial court in

denying the application of Ms. Mocha Uson (Mocha) to declare her
marriage with Mr. Coffee Uson (Coffee) NULL AND VOID on the
ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity which renders him
incapable to fulfill his marital obligations.

IV. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

1. On 21 February 2014, a complaint was filed by Mocha against

Coffee as Civil Case No. 123 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Surigao City. It was initially raffled to Branch 103 under
Judge Xander Ford.

2. On 20 April 2014, Judge Ford rendered a decision in favor of

Coffee, denying the petition for the Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity filed by
Mocha.

3. On 30 April 2014, a motion for reconsideration was filed by

Mocha but it was denied by the trial court.

V. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

4
4. On 15 May 2014 Plaintiff-Appellant, through counsel, received
an Order from this Honorable Court directing them to file their
Appellant’s Brief within 45 days from receipt thereof.

5. Mocha is filing the petition within the period required by the

Court.

VI. APPEALED DECISION

6. The dispositive portion of the appealed Order dated 20 April

2014 states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiff’s petition

for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

7. The dispositive portion of the Motion for Reconsideration

Order dated 30 April 2014 states:

“WHEREFORE, the motion is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

merit.

SO ORDERED.”

VII. STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Around 2005, Coffee and Mocha studied in the same college.

Coffee courted Mocha and they subsequently became
sweethearts.

9. During their first year as sweethearts, Mocha did not see any
problem with Coffee’s behavior. He was a kind and caring
person.

10. As their relationship continued, Mocha discovered more about

Coffee’s personal life, including his family history;

11.Coffee came from a broken family. As early as 12 years old,

Coffee lived with his drunkard and violent father. Coffee’s
mother left them as she could not stand the excessive battering
from Coffee’s father;

5
12.From then on, Coffee became the subject of his father’s
maltreatment. He was publicly shamed and physically abused
for not doing household chores and going to school instead;

13.Being constantly maltreated, Coffee, instead of expressing his

anger, made them hidden as if it was his only tenable choice;

14.Coffee is one of those children who are raised in families where

they know they will be met with harsh physical punishment or
retribution if they express dissatisfaction or
unhappiness. Accordingly, because of his authoritarian and
violent father, he learned that his only safe option is to hide his
true feelings – anger, anxiety etc.;

15.As a result, Coffee was expelled several times from school. The
reason for his expulsions was common. Aside from his
customary absences, he deliberately and habitually ignored his
duties as a student. When confronted by his teachers, he would
enthusiastically agree to change his ways, but would
subsequently manifest utter disregard to the doing of the same.
Since then, Coffee was often found gambling and drinking with
his friends instead of studying;

16.Around 2006, Coffee cohabited with Mocha. Mocha agreed, but

on the condition that Coffee would refrain from his gambling
ways and instead use his money to pay for the household
expenses;

17.There were no problems during their first three months of living

together, until Coffee started to gamble with his friends again.
He started to go home late at night. Also, as most of his money
was spent in gambling, they successively failed to pay for the
household expenses;

18. As a result, Mocha left Coffee. However, after several months,

Coffee searched for Mocha and persuaded her to live with him
again. Mocha assented on the condition that he would refrain
from his gambling ways and focus on building their future
together;

19. Several months after, Mocha and Coffee got married in a

catholic wedding ceremony at San Nicolas Cathedral Church in
Surigao City on 14 February 2008;

20.Likewise, their first few months of being husband and wife

were good. However, Coffee indulged in all kinds of gambling
again, especially in cockfighting which made him incapacitated
6
 to perform his essential duties as a husband to his wife Mocha
and a father to his two children. He spent most of his time with
his gambling friends without minding his family - he preferred
to be with his friends and to gamble all the time instead of
being with his family;

21. Coffee usually spent his time drinking until he goes home late
at night. Sometimes he goes home in the morning. And most of
the time, he does not sleep in their conjugal dwelling;

22. Gambling was a daily routine for Coffee. Albeit cockfighting is

held only every Sunday, Coffee goes to neighbouring
municipalities and barangays with his friends where
cockfighting is held as early in the morning. Then, he goes
home late in the evening and in the morning he again goes
where cockfighting is held. When he gambles, he does not care
how much he loses - sky is the limit when it comes to his
gambling ways;

23. Coffee does not allocate a portion of his salary even for the
basic needs of his children such as food, clothing, and
medicines. Instead, he frustratingly uses his money to feed his
own interests and vices, which includes, among others,
cockfighting, drinking, and spending for his friend’s food and
drinks. Simply put, Coffee does not mind if his family is hungry
as long as he is happy in his gambling. He could not perform
his essential duties as a husband and a father as he prefers the
company of friends and his gambling ways;

24. As a result, Mocha carried all the weight of providing for their
children’s needs by herself. In everything that involves their
children; Mocha was the one who carried the obligation which
she and Coffee should have shared as husband and wife.
Mocha, if not solely, mostly spends for the children’s food,
tuition fee, clothing, medicines and more;
7
25. Mocha never failed to remind Coffee of his obligations to his
children, but he always refuses because he is always in a hurry
to go to where cockfighting and other gambling activities are.
In rare occasion that he expresses his desire to meet his
children, he does so with a condition that Mocha must first have
sex with him and which Mocha politely refused;

26. At times when Mocha refuses to have sex him, Coffee still
forces himself on her even if she was dog tired from working
and fulfilling their supposed shared parental obligations to their
children all by herself;

27. Mocha felt like a prostitute. Her sexual relationship with

Coffee was an ordeal. Every time Coffee comes home late at
night, which always happens, he was always drunk and Mocha
could not stand his condition. Coffee says “HALA KAY
NAKAINOM AKO MOGAMIT AKO” (Alright, I have taken a
drink and I want to use you) devoid of any affection and care;

28. The ordeal of Mocha was not limited to the said events. Coffee
harasses Mocha whenever he cannot get what he wants from
her like money. On one occasion, he denied to have emptied the
bank deposit in Mocha’s ATM amounting to about P80, 000.00
without the latter’s knowledge. Mocha only discovered this
when their daughter was hospitalized and they could not pay
the hospital as there was no money left in Mocha’s ATM
account. However, Coffee subsequently confessed using the
money for reasons which he does not remember anymore;

29. On many occasions, Coffee pawned Mocha’s jewelries and

used the proceeds of the loans for his purposes without the
family benefitting from it. Worst, Mocha was the one who
8
 redeemed the jewelries because he refuses to redeem it using
his money;

30. On December 2009, Coffee induced Mocha to lease a rice land

and gave P50, 000.00 to his sister. However, when the lease did
not push through, Mocha asked her sister in law for the return
of the money, but the latter said that the money was already
returned to Coffee. The said money was not returned by Coffee
to Mocha. Worst, Coffee said that he lost the money in
gambling;

31. On December 2010, when Coffee was employed as a member

of the PNP, he borrowed the amount of P120, 000.00 from their
loan association, but never shared such amount with Mocha and
to his children. Instead, he used it in gambling and his drinking
pals;

32. Coffee resorts to falsehood whenever it suits his purposes.

Every time he is reminded by Mocha to mend his wayward
ways, he immediately threatens to commit suicide. In fact,
Coffee threatened Mocha that she should be ready to be notified
that he had jumped overboard during a time when he was in
Siargao Island just to get money from Mocha to support his
vices;

33. Because of their indifference to each other resulting from the

wayward ways of Coffee, whatever physical attraction they had
for one another gradually wore off, and thereafter each lived
separately. In fact, they had been living separately for the last
two years with Mocha shouldering the all the expenses for the
children while Coffee is enjoying the comfort of his gambling
friends. Likewise, Coffee did not give petitioner a regular

9
 monthly support or at least any amount for sustenance and
education of their children;

34. Coffee was found to be suffering from psychological disorder

called PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE PERSONALIYY
DISORDER. The said disorder is characterized by indirect
resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct
confrontation. People with such disorder usually follow their
deadlines without care for others. They tend to control people
around them by purporting to agree, but without intent of
respecting the agreement.

35. The wayward ways of the defendant as above described shows

that at the time of the celebration of the marriage, respondent
was psychologically incapacitated to take cognizance of and to
assume basic marital obligations to live together, observer
mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and
support;

36. The incapacity of the respondent to comply with the essential

marital obligations, as discussed above, became manifest only
after the solemnization of the marriage between him and the
petitioner although it was already present even before the
marriage was solemnized; and

37. Coffee’s inability to comply with the above-enumerated

essential marital obligations is rooted in grave psychological
illness on his part that existed even before his marriage to the
petitioner and is permanent and incurable.

10
 VIII. ISSUES

The issues are outlined as follows:

1. Whether or not the trial court committed a reversible error when

it declared that appellee did not manifest any psychological
incapacity during his marriage with the appellant.

2. Whether or not the trial court erred in denying the motion for
reconsideration of the appellant.

IX. ARGUMENTS

I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE

ERROR IN DECLARING THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY WAS NOT MANIFESTED BY THE
DEFENDANT DURING HIS MARRIAGE WITH THE
PETITIONER.

We contend that the trial court erred in its decision because

Coffee’s acts constitute psychological incapacity.

Article 681 of our Family Code provides that, the husband and wife
are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support. A violation of this provision of
the Family Code can declare the marriage as null and void on the
ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the family
code.

Article 362 of the Family Code provides that 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 even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

Santos v. Court of Appeals3 declared that psychological

incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical
antecedence; and (c) incurability. It 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. It must be
confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage.

1 Family Code of the Philippines, Article 68

2 Family Code of the Philippines, Article 36
3 Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995
11
 The Court laid down more definitive guidelines in the
interpretation and application of the law in Republic v. Court of
Appeals (Molina)4 as follows:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws
cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family.
Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the
Family, recognizing it as the foundation of the nation. It
decrees marriage as legally inviolable, thereby protecting it
from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family
and marriage are to be protected by the state.
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on
marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence,
inviolability and solidarity.
(2) The root cause of the psychological
incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts
and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the
Family Code requires that the incapacity must
be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations
and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must
convince the court that the parties or one of them was
mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person
could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given valid assumption
thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be
given here so as not to limit the application of the provision
under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such
root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and
its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence
may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical
psychologists.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at
the time of the celebration of the marriage. The evidence
must show that the illness was existing when the parties
exchanged their I do's. The manifestation of the illness
need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself
must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be
medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard
to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against

4 Republic v. Court of Appeals (268 SCRA 198)

12
 everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity
must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations,
not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the
exercise of a profession or employment in a job. x x x
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about
the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. Thus, mild characteriological
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness
must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a
refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other
words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the
person, an adverse integral element in the personality
structure that effectively incapacitates the person from
really accepting and thereby complying with the
obligations essential to marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as
regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221
and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must
also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and
included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be
given great respect by our courts x x x
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down
unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which
will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his
reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be,
to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case
is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The
Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of
the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.[12]

Molina, subsequent jurisprudence holds, merely expounded on

the basic requirements of Santos.

First, petitioner successfully discharged her burden to prove the

psychological incapacity of her husband.

13
 When Mocha, as a witness, testified under oath before the lower
court and was cross-examined, she thereby presented evidence in the
form of testimony. Significantly, petitioners narration of facts was and
remained categorical even during a rigorous cross-examination

Second, the root cause of Coffee’s psychological incapacity has

been medically or clinically identified, alleged in the petition,
sufficiently proven, and clearly explained by the appellant.

The petition alleged that from the beginning of their marriage,

Coffee was manifesting behaviours of a person with a passive-
aggressive disorder. Among others, his customary disregard to others
and his unbroken attitude of purporting to agree, but without intent of
respecting the agreement. These manifestations of the said disorder
were positively identified by the expert witness presented by Coffee
himself, although not conceding that Coffee was diagnosed of such.

Third, the psychological incapacity of Coffee was established to

have clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of
marriage. Contrary to the trial court’s finding, the petition clearly
alleged that Coffee’s passive-aggressive disorder existed even prior to
the marriage being rooted in his early development, hostile
environment, and a by-product of his upbringing and family life.

Fourth, Coffee’s psychological incapacity has been shown to be

sufficiently grave, so as to render him unable to assume the essential
obligations of marriage.

In various occasions, prior and during the marriage, Coffee

clearly manifested his deliberate and blatant disregard to the rearing of
his family. As pointed out in the petition, it was customary for Coffee
not to allocate a portion of his salary even for the basic needs of his
children such as food, clothing, and medicines. Instead, he
frustratingly uses his money to feed his own interests and vices, which
includes, among others, cockfighting, drinking, and spending for his
friend’s food and drinks. Simply put, Coffee does not mind if his
family is hungry as long as he is happy in his gambling. He could not

14
perform his essential duties as a husband and a father as he prefers the
company of friends and his gambling ways.

Further, we cannot overlook the times when Coffee forced to

have sex with Mocha even if she was dog tired from working and
fulfilling their supposed shared parental obligations to their children
all by herself.

Furthermore, neither can we overlook that Coffee resorts to

falsehood whenever it suits his purposes. Every time he is reminded
by Mocha to mend his wayward ways, he immediately threatens to
commit suicide. In fact, Coffee threatened Mocha that she should be
ready to be notified that he had jumped overboard during a time when
he was in Siargao Island just to get money from Mocha to support his
vices

Fifth, Coffee is evidently unable to comply with the essential

marital obligations embodied in Articles 68 of the Family Code. As
noted by the trial court, as a result of Coffee’s passive-aggressive
personality disorder, he cannot make his own decisions and cannot
fulfill his responsibilities as a husband. Coffee plainly failed to fulfill
the marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect,
and support under Article 68. Indeed, one who is unable to support
himself, much less a wife and children; one who cannot contribute to
the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations
within the meaning of Article 36.

Sixth, the incurability of Coffee’s condition which has been

deeply ingrained in his system since his early years was supported by
evidence.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
APPELLANT FOR LACK OF MERIT.

The trial court erred in denying the motion for reconsideration of

the appellant for failure to establish an expert’s testimony. It added

15
that the testimony of Mocha was not sufficient to prove the
psychological incapacity of Coffee.

The trial court failed to consider the case of Marcos v. Marcos5,

where it was clarified that there is no requirement that the
defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a
physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the
declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity.

Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to introduce expert

opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if the
totality of evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists and
its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly
established.

Here, the categorical testimonies of Mocha sufficiently proved

the psychological incapacity of Coffee and established its gravity,
juridical antecedence, and incurability. Again, when Mocha, as a
witness, testified under oath before the lower court and was cross-
examined, she thereby presented evidence in the form of testimony.

IX. RELIEF

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing consideration, it is

respectfully prayed that:

To REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision rendered by the

trial court denying the petition of Mocha to declare her marriage with
Coffee NULL and VOID on the ground of the latter’s psychological
incapacity.

Appellant prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable
under the circumstances.

Quezon City, 15 June 2014

ENRIQUE ADOLFO C. SAN JUAN

Counsel for Petitioner Angelica Angeles
2nd Floor Sui Generis Building
143 Buendia Avenue
Makati City
Atty. Roll No. 100987
IBP 100897 10-08-22

5 Marcos vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000

16
 PTR 100898 12-10-63
MCLE Compliance III-108
Email: emailstoenrique@gmail.com

EXPLANATION
A copy of this memorandum has been served on the adverse
party by registered mail in view of the distance and absence of a
messenger who could make a personal service.

XI. APPENDICES

(Copy of the appealed Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Makati

City, Branch 103, dated 20 April 2014 (Appendix “A”) and 30 April
2011 (Appendix “B”)

17