Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 69, City of Taguig

CHRISTINA RIVERA-BANSIL ,
Petitioner,

CIVIL CASE NO. 8864

For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code
- versus -

RICHIE S. BANSIL,
Respondent.

x--------------------------\

MEMORANDUM

PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states:

NATURE OF THE PETITION

This instant petition is an action for the Declaration by the Honorable

Court of Nullity of Marriage within the tenets of Article 36 of the Family Code, as

amended, on the ground of respondents psychological incapacity to discharge

the essential marital obligations as decreed by our statutes.

 FACTS

Petitioner and respondent met sometime in March 1997 and

eventually became sweethearts. After seven months or on October 29,

1997, they decided to elope and stayed at the house of respondents

parents.

After three months or on January 24, 1998, Petitioner and

Respondent officially exchanged marital vows to bind them together as

husband and wife via church wedding rites at Iglesia Filipina

Independiente, San Antonio Guagua, Pampanga on 24 January 1998. On

17 September 1998, their only child, TWINA RACKLE BANSIL, was born.

Petitioner and respondent have not acquired, in their own right, any

personal or real property which could be subject of conjugal ownership.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

From the time of the celebration of the marriage and anterior thereto up to

the present time, the respondent has exhibited the highest degree of emotional

immaturity and instability that unequivocally demonstrate her refusal and inability

to assume much less perform the essential obligations appurtenant to her

marriage as mandated by the provisions of the Family code, as Amended.

 When the parties eloped and were still sweethearts, Respondent

displayed his immaturity and lack of responsibility when they stayed with

his parents and depended upon them for their sustenance. Instead of

looking for work for their daily needs, he remained jobless and sought

assistance from their parents.

During the period of cohabitation, respondents psychological

incapacity became even more apparent by the following actuations, among

others:

1. Respondent did not perform his responsibilities as a husband.

He remained unemployed until the year 2000 and relied on the petitioner

and their parents for their needs.

2. When Respondent worked abroad, he rarely called Petitioner

or wrote to her. When Respondent went home to the Philippines, Petitioner

discovered that he was arranging papers for their eventual separation

without telling her.

3. Respondent maintained an illicit relationship with another

woman. During one of his vacations, Respondent would leave the house

on most occasions. He also spent his time talking over the telephone and
chatting in the internet. Respondent even had the temerity to accuse

Petitioner of having an illicit lover but the truth is, it was the other way

around.

Clearly, Respondent is very egocentric such that he placed his

marital responsibilities secondary to his personal predilections.

4. Respondent was emotionally insensitive to petitioners needs

because he never affirmed nor appreciated her. He was quick to accuse

her but was slow in recognizing and appreciating her efforts in keeping

their family despite her being left alone to take care of their child.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

During one of Respondents vacation in the Philippines, Petitioner

caught him speaking with somebody on the telephone. When Petitioner

asked him about it, Respondent said it was just a friend. When Petitioner

discovered that it was Respondents girlfriend, she was angry and they had

an intense quarrel about the matter.

Petitioner was able to confirm that Respondent had a paramour from

the other girl herself when she called her.

 Respondent failed to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity when

she had an affair with another woman. More so, he committed acts that

brought dishonor or injury to his family.

Respondent is immature and irresponsible and escapes the

responsibilities of a married person. He was very preoccupied with self-

interests that he failed to express love, trust, support, respect and

commitment to petitioner. He lacked empathy and emotional callousness

rendering him unable to care for his wife. This incapacity is identified by

Clinical Psychologist Nedy L. Tayag as ANTI-SOCIAL/AVOIDANT

PERSONALITY DISORDER with narcissistic features.

Above all, the psychological incapacity of the respondent is

characterized by judicial antecedence the disorder existed before the

marriage and only manifested thereon.

The root cause of respondents flawed personality can be traced

back from the early years of development influenced by a rather unhealthy

and negative familial condition in childhood. His condition has been rooted

early in life and it has been deeply imprinted into his system, making his

functioning and adjustment highly defective. Such disorder is considered to

be grave, pervasive, serious, severe and permanent rendering it totally

beyond refurbishment despite available treatments and intervention.

Respondents psychological incapacity which exists prior to and at

the time of marriage appears to be grave, antecedent and incurable and

the only remedy on the part of herein Petitioner is to have his marriage

with respondent declared Null and Void on the ground of Psychological

Incapacity pursuant to the mandate of Article 36 of the Family Code.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PETITIONER

During the trial, petitioner presented the following:

EXHIBITS DOCUMENTS PURPOSE/S

A PETITION dated 05 To prove that petitioner

September 2010 filed the instant petition
and the same was
Signature of the furnished to the
A-1
Petitioner respondent, Office of the
Solicitor General and the
trial prosecutor in
compliance with the rule

B Copy of the Certificate of To prove that the parties

marriage of the petitioner were legally married on
and respondent. 24 January 1998 in
 Iglesia Filipina
Independiente, San
Antonio, Guagua,
Pampanga

C Certificate of Live Birth of To prove that their

their only child, TWINA marriage produced a
RACKLE BANSIL daughter born on 17
September 1998

D Psychological Evaluation To prove that respondent

Report dated 04 August is suffering from
2010 of Dra. Nedy L. psychological incapacity
Tayag to comply with his
essential marital
obligations

E Prosecutors Report To prove that an

dated 17 December 2010 investigation was
conducted and no
collusion between the
parties was determined.

Judicial Affidavit dated 20 To prove the contents

F March 2011 of the thereof.
petitioner Christina
Rivera-Bansil To show and prove the
character of the
respondent and the
circumstances that
transpired before and
during the marriage
pointing to the
respondents
psychological incapacity.

Certification of Residency To prove that the

G dated 13 August 2010 petitioner is a bona fide
resident of Taguig City
H Sworn Affidavit of Nedy To prove the contents
Tayag in the form of thereof.
Question and Answer in
lieu of Direct Testimony To prove that a clinical
identification of the root
causes, antecedence,
gravity and incurability of
the psychological
incapacity of the
respondent to perform his
essential marital
obligations has been
made in the person of
Clinical Psychologist
Nedy Tayag and that it
was found that
respondents
psychological incapacity
is in the form of a mental
disorder known as
ANTISOCIAL /
AVOIDANT
PERSONALITY
DISORDER with
narcissistic features,
which is considered to be
grave, severe, long
lasting and incurable by
any treatment available.

Sworn Affidavit of witness To prove that being the

I Rosette Gepila in the older sister of
form of question and respondent, she was able
answer to witness the
relationship of the
petitioner and respondent
and how the respondent
specifically behaved
while being married to
the petitioner;

To corroborate the
testimony of the
petitioner in this case.
 ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER SATISFIED THE

REQUIREMENTS TO DECLARE HER MARRIAGE WITH
THE RESPONDENT NULL AND VOID ON THE GROUND
OF PYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY UNDER ARTICLE 36
OF THE FAMILY CODE.

In support and amplifications thereof, petitioner offers the following

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

Based on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in a number of

cases1, herein petitioner respectfully submits that she has satisfactorily complied

with the said requirements, to wit:

FIRST 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.

From the evidence presented, petitioner amply alleged in her petition and

sufficiently proven during the trial the acts of emotional immaturity and

1
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. VS. CA AND MOLINA, G R NO. 108763, 13 FEB. 1997, 79 SCAD
462
irresponsibility committed by the respondent and his behavioral pattern which

indicates psychological incapacity as clearly proven by Exhibits A, A-1; F;I.

Moreover, the finding of psychological incapacity of the respondent was

clinically and medically identified by a clinical psychologist name Dra. Nedy L.

Tayag as evidenced by Exhibits D and H.

The Psychological Evaluation Report dated 04 August 2010 prepared by

Dra. Tayag, opined that the respondent is suffering from a psychological

incapacity in the form of mental disorder known as ANTISOCIAL / AVOIDANT

PERSONALITY DISORDER.

SECOND The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the

celebration of the marriage. And, such incapacity must be shown to be medically

or clinically permanent or incurable.

Dra. Tayag clearly diagnosed the psychological incapacity of the

respondent to be clinically grave, permanent or incurable and such incapacity

was existing at the time of the marriage as evidenced by the following:

Question: Why did you say it is grave, serious, chronic, severe

and incurable?

Answer: It is grave as it fully engrained into his system long

before he met petitioner, which eventually result, to his severe

inability to effect fidelity, trust, commitment and responsibility. It is

also serious as it fully distorted his concept regarding marital

relationship. In like manner, it is also incurable, as up to this very

moment, no scientific breakthrough will help respondent to

acknowledge his incapacity thru therapy or psychological

intervention. Aside from the fact that his irrational and abnormal

behavior is not detrimental to his (sic) but to others. The

psychological incapacity of the respondent is indeed deeply rooted;

it is already in his character.

No amount of therapy, no matter how intensive, can possibly

change the respondent in so far as incapability to perform his

essential marital obligations with the petitioner is concerned. The

petitioner made efforts to try to save the marriage but to no avail.

He would always be in denial of his own psychological incapacity

and therefore he would likewise resist any treatment or therapy.

Question: Can you further expound on this or what are the

manifestations of this gravity?

Answer: The success of the couples union was made difficult,

if not downright impossible apparently by respondents parasitic

and exploitative disposition, which was evident thru his hesitance to

stay with respondent and perform his duties as a married man.

Respondent is depicted as a very irresponsible and immature man

that he cannot maintain something that is sacred, a vow that he

promised in the presence of God. He forgot that he had a wife and

a child. Marriage contract to him was like an employment contract

that he could terminate or resign from when he is no longer happy.

Marriage to him was not sacred or important as he only entered

marriage primarily to escape from his problems in school. He easily

walked away when faced with the realities of married life and he

wanted out of it when he no longer liked it. Moreover, he is seen to

be non-committal towards his supposed responsibilities as he

readily evades and escapes from it. He may have provided well in

terms of monetary and material things but such financial obligation

was only a fraction of his husbandly duties. He lacked depth when it

comes to his commitments that he failed to adequately manage his

household. After several years of being away, and after having

been exposed to different culture and all types of women, he had

fallen out of love and gave in to temptation. He is basically seen to

be pleasure-oriented and self-centered. His sheer selfishness and

happy-go-lucky lifestyle has pushed him to walk away from his

commitments and pursue his self-interests which have been his

sole preoccupation from the very start. Respondent, instead of

being honest and respectful to his wife, took advantage and

betrayed the trust and love that she gave him. He is seen to lack

adequate awareness of his flawed pattern of behavior that he has

grown tough and unemotional, rendering him unable to care for his

wife. While having an illicit affair with another woman, respondent

would even have the temerity to turn things around by accusing

petitioner of being a philanderer herself. But in truth, such is a

reflection of his futile attempts to liberate self from guilt feelings he

has and thus projecting such towards his wife. He has remained

insensitive and numb that he refuses to admit his wrongdoings and

thus could not be departed from his crooked ways.

Question: You said this is deeply rooted, what are the root

causes of the psychological incapacity of respondent?

Answer: The initiation of the Personality Disorder of the

Respondent can be drawn from repulsive familial relationships

during his formative years that could have misrepresented what

could have been a normal childhood development and had thus,

resulted to his pathological personality disposition. RICHIE is the

fourth child of six (6) siblings, who grew up from a family with

absentee parents as both parents were OFWs during his early

years. Because of the absence of significant primary caregivers, he

has been deprived of the basic parental affection and nurturance

 which made him unable to establish adequate intimate bonds. As

such, respondent has become shallow when it comes to his

relationship with petitioner. Meanwhile, respondent has known his

father as someone who has penchant in gambling, smoking and

drinking while his mother has been portrayed as a hot headed and

ill-tempered person. With such poor parental example,

respondents view towards marital relationship as a whole has been

utterly distorted disabling him to reciprocate adequate love, trust,

respect, support and commitment. He has developed a poor pattern

of immaturity, irresponsibility, self-centeredness and avoidance of

duties which were not corrected from the very beginning due to lack

of ample discipline in the home. He has become overly engrossed

in his pleasure-oriented desires making him shun away from

commitments and obligations. He has eventually left his wife on his

won and gave him financial support to compensate for his absence.

He expected her to generate the money he has been allocating and

eventually blamed her for being unable to handle finances

adequately and for having an illicit affair with another man. In truth,

such is his projection of his flagrant activities as he himself has his

own illicit love affair. He has totally neglected his wifes needs and

welfare to the point of total oblivion to his obligations. Finally, he

has been so calloused and numb with his own faulty behavior that it

would be very difficult to correct him from his crooked actuations. 2

2
Pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit H
 Furthermore, the psychological incapacity of the petitioner and the

respondent was already present even before the marriage ceremony

especially because of the root causes I have just described. There were already

signals of this disorder before this marriage. 3

THIRD Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of

the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

More importantly, the incapacity of the respondent was grave as he is

incapable of showing commitment, fidelity, trust, support and love toward the

petitioner, considered as essential marital obligations mandated under Articles 68

to 71, 220,221 and 225 of the Family Code.

Finally, as a conclusion, since the psychological abnormality of the

respondent has been rooted early in life, it has been deeply imprinted into his

system, making his functioning and adjustment highly defective. Such disorder is

considered to be grave, pervasive, serious, severe and permanent rendering it

totally beyond refurbishment despite available treatments and intervention.

Further, Respondents psychological incapacitation is highly noted to be of

juridical antecedence. Meaning, such flawed personality pattern began even

before he entered marriage and manifested only thereon. Considering the

sternness of Respondents aberrant psychological condition, it is deemed very

3
Ibid.
difficult to have reconciliation towards the ends of a blissful and happy marriage.

It clearly shows that the marriage between CHRISTINA RIVERA-BANSIL and

RICHIE S. BANSIL was not founded and will never be established on true love,

trust, support, respect and commitment.

Wherefore, given much consideration to the presented findings and

evaluation, the undersigned Clinical Practioner (NEDY L. TAYAG) strongly

recommends to this Honorable court that the marriage between petitioner and

respondent be declared null and void 4.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays from this Honorable Court

to:

1. Wisely, ADJUDGE the Respondent Psychologically incapacitated to

comply with her essential marital obligations;

2. Subsequently, DECLARE the marriage between the petitioner and

respondent celebrated on 05 February 2000 NULL AND VOID

pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

3. Thereafter, ORDER the Local Civil Registrar of Talisay, Camarines

Norte, as well as the Bureau of Census and Statistics Office to

cancel from their respective Books of Marriage the entries on the

marriage between the parties.

4
Page 15-16 of Exhibit D
 Petitioner also prays for other just and equitable relief.

Makati City to Taguig City.

Counsel for the Petitioner

3rd Floor HPL Building,
No. 60 Senator Gil Puyat Ave.
Makati City

By:

RAYMOND M. CAJUCOM
IBP Lifetime Member No. 03423/ Rizal
PTR No. 0267653/ 01-02-07/ Makati
Roll of Attorneys No. 48114

Copy furnished:

PROSECUTOR WINIFREDO B. AGAPITO

Hall of Justice, DPWH Compound
General Santos Avenue
Bicutan, Taguig City

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

No. 134 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village
Makati City

OFELIA SOTTO SANTOS

RESPONDENT
Block 136, Lot 23, Purok 5,
Upper Bicutan, Taguig City

CERTIFICATION
 I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Memorandum was filed in this
Honorable court and served on all the parties concerned by registered mail due
to distance, time constraints and lack of office personnel effect personal filing and
service of all office pleadings.

RAYMOND M. CAJUCOM