REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-MUNTINLUPA CITY FAMILY COURT BRANCH 111 SARA y ANDERTON HERONIMO, Petitioner,

-vsHERALD ANTERTON Respondent, x----------------------------------------------x

CIVIL CASE NO. FC-1000 for DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

ANSWER TO THE PETITION FOR NULLITY OF MARRIAGE WITH COUNTER-PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION

COMES NOW, the respondent through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully avers:

1.

That the respondent admits paragraphs 1 and 2 as it pertains to the personal circumstances of both parties.

2.

That the respondent specifically denies paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. The truth of which is stated in the affirmative defenses of this answer.

3.

That the respondent has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraphs 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24.

4.

That the respondent admits paragraph 31 of the petition to the extent that the parties has no marriage settlement before and during the marital vows, and no debt or obligation to third parties.

By way of special and affirmative defenses, the respondent avers that: The marriage of the petitioner and respondent is valid 5. The petitioner and respondent met through their common friends during their college days sometime in 2003. They started as friends and eventually entered into a romantic relationship. The courtship progressed and they became engaged.

6.

They graduated from college at the age of 22. Thereafter, the respondent confessed his love to the petitioner and asked the latter to marry him. The petitioner accepted. They started informing their parents and with no questions asked their families freely welcomed them.

7.

The petitioner wanted to experience her prestigious dream wedding and the respondent promised her to fulfill such dream. However, because of limited finances, they decided to delay the celebration of their marriage. They opened a joint bank account in Bank of the Philippine Islands covered by passbook no. 1234 (ANNEX 1) to finance their wedding and their daily expenses as well.

8.

Both of them exerted their efforts to save money in order to celebrate their dream wedding.

9.

In the latter part of 2004, they were able to rent a studiotype apartment using the proceeds of their salaries. They started living with each other as husband and wife where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union.

10.

In the eyes of their neighbors, they were considered as a

married couples where in they were usually invited to events as a couple.

11.

After 6 years of living together, they decided to exchange

their marital vows on January 1, 2010 at the San Pablo Cathedral, San Pablo City and reception followed at Villa Escudero, Tiaong Quezon.

12.

The petitioner and respondent signed an affidavit that they

live together for at least 5 years before the celebration of marriage as shown in Annex 2.

13.

Based on the foregoing circumstances, the marriage of the

petitioner and respondent is valid. As provided in Article 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines, [n]o license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as

husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.

The respondent is not psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. 14. The respondent specifically denies paragraph 18, which

alleges the alcohol addiction of the respondent. The Court held in Hernandez v. Court of Appeals 1 that habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity.

15.

The respondent specifically denies paragraph 22, 23, 24,

and 27. The Court enunciated in Perez-Ferraris vs. Ferraris2 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
2 G.R. No. 162368 July 17, 2006

1 G.R. No. 126010. December 8, 1999

they must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness.

16.

The respondent denies paragraphs 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30.

The averments made are mere conclusions of law.

COUNTER PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION

17.

After their marriage, the couple decided to settle at Unit 123

Building 456 Westgate, Filinvest Alabang, Muntinlupa City where they built their family home;

18.

Indeed, the couples marriage was off to a good start

manifested through their display of intimacy and giving of trust and respect to each other, hence, they could then easily address minor issues in their relationship. The respondent was truly a family man as he placed the welfare of the petitioner his priority over and above anything and anybody else;

19.

Respondent had hoped that such flame of happiness in their

marriage would not fade. However, in the middle stages of their marriage, petitioner started showing thoughtlessness in the performance of her marital obligations as she became immersed in a gambling habit (frequenting casino) and seldom went home. In sum, petitioner was transforming into an irresponsible wife.

Notwithstanding, respondent tried very hard to relight the flame to possibly reverse the deteriorating condition of their marriage;

20.

Unfortunately, however, sometime in May 2011, the

situation got worse when petitioner became addicted to gambling and suffered from habitual alcoholism. Petitioners refusal to quit her vices fuelled quarrels between the spouses and in the middle of those fights, the petitioner would more often than not physically hurt the respondent and/or destroy whatever thing (usually appliances) she would get hold of;

21.

In the latter part of 2011, petitioner left the respondent and

the conjugal dwelling and has not returned ever since. Moreover, she has become totally unmindful of her obligations to him as all her time and money were spent for her vices. From then on, there is a complete cessation of marital relations between petitioner and respondent, both personal and property;

22.

On November 2011, the situation turned from worse to

worst when respondent discovered that petitioner has been cohabiting with another man. Because of the shocking turn of events, respondent suffered from embarrassment and public ridicule in their community, thus forcing them to transfer abode to Unit 789 Tower 012 12th Street, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig;

23.

Respondent can and will no longer tolerate petitioners

continued blatant transgression of her marital vows because the confluence of her irresponsible and unwarranted acts and sexual infidelity amounting to failure on her part to perform her duty to live with the respondent, duty to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and duty to render mutual help and support is just too much for him to handle. Hence, the foregoing considered, this Petition for Legal Separation on the following grounds: (a) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner; (b) Habitual alcoholism of the petitioner; (c)Sexual infidelity or perversion of the petitioner;

24.

The couple did not enter into any property relations and

petitioner has no known creditors;

25.

In filing this petition, respondent was constrained to engage

the services of a counsel for an acceptance fee of 100,000 and per appearance fee of 10,000 and will incur litigation expenses in the sum of P150,000.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to decide in favor of the respondent and specifically decreeing the following:

1. The dismissal of the Petition for Nullity of Marriage for lack of

cause of action;

2. The Legal Separation between petitioner and respondent;

3. The dissolution of their conjugal property relations and the division of the net conjugal assets;

4. The designation of the respondent as the administrator of the absolute community during the pendency of the action and eventual dissolution of such property;

5. The forfeiture of petitioners one-half share in the net conjugal assets;

6. The disqualification of petitioner from inheriting from the respondent by intestate succession as well as the revocation of the provisions in the will of the respondent (if any) in favor of the petitioner;

7. The guilty spouse (petitioner) to provide support to the innocent spouse (respondent);

8. The payment to respondent's counsel of the sum of P 100,000 as attorney's fees to be taken from the petitioner's share in the net assets;

9. Respondent further prays for any other relief or reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable by the Honorable Court.

Taguig, Metro Manila. April 23, 2012

MARIA KAMILLE VILLALOBOS Counsel for Respondent PTR No. 45679 Roll of Attorneys No. 98666 IBP No. 47595 MCLE Exemption No. 28395

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Herald Anderton, of legal age and with residence at Unit 789 tower 012 12th Street, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, after having been duly sworn, depose ad say: 1. That I am the respondent in this Answer to the Petition for Nullity of Marriage. 2. That I have caused the preparation of the said Answer with Counter Petition for Legal Separation. 3. That I have read the allegations therein contained and that the same are true and correct of my personal knowledge. 4. That I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other claim or action is pending and if I should thereafter learn of any similar action or claim, I shall report it within five (5) days to the court where such pleading has been filed. WITNESS my hand this 23rd day of April 2012 at Taguig, Metro Manila. Herald Anderton Respondent JURAT SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 23rd day of April 2012, by Herald Anderton who exhibited to me his Drivers License with License No. 3424 issued at Manila, Philippines on May 5, 2011.

Ma. Kamille Villalobos Notary Public Until December 2012 PTR No. 29837 Issued at Makati On January 3, 2012 Doc No. _______; Page No. ______; Book No. ______; Series of ______;