Memorandum of Arguments

8/20/2019 Memorandum of Arguments

1/19

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region

Branch 22, Makati City

EDWARD X. CULLEN,

Petitioner,

-versus- Civil Case No. 1234454

or! "eclaration of Nullity of Marriage

under #rticle $% of the a&ily Code

ISABELLA W. SALADOR! CULLEN,

Respondent'

( ))))))))))))))))))))))))) (

"E"ORANDU" O# ARGU"ENTS #OR T$E %LAINTI##

*"+#R" ' C..*N, through the undersigned counsel, &ostrespectfully sub&its and presents this Me&orandu& in the above-titled case and

states that!

T$E %ARTIES

/' 0he Plaintiff, *"+#R" ' C..*N'

2' 0he "efendant, 1#B*..# +' C..*N

#ACTUAL BAC&GROUND

"uring the course of the trial, the Plaintiff, through his 3itnesses and the

proceedings, 3as able to establish the follo3ing facts!

/' 0he Plaintiff, EDWARD X. CULLEN 45Plaintiff67, is a ilipino, $8 years old,

&arried, and a resident of /2$9 0iktik treet, Barangay eattle, MakatiCity, 3here notices, papers, and other legal processes &ay be served'


2/19

2' 0he "efendant, ISABELLA W. CULLEN 45"efendant67, is a ilipino,

&arried, and a resident of //// orks treet, Brgy' +ashington, Makati

City, 3here notices, papers, and other legal processes &ay be served'

$' 0he parties &et 3hen they 3ere in college and beca&e a couple

eventually'

9' 0hey continued to date after their college graduation'

8' 0he Plaintiff started 3orking at :a&piraPhar&a0elco& 3here he is still

presently e&ployed'

%' 0he "efendant pursued her studies in Medicine'

;' 0he parties 3ere &arried on #ugust /ur .ady of Beautiful

.ove Parish in Parana?ue City'

@' 0he parties are the parents of Renes&ee ' Cullen, born on March /2,

2=/2'


3/19

/9'0he Plaintiff 3as e(a&ined by Clinical Psychiatrist, "r' Nor&inda"a3ag,

3ho 3as stipulated by both parties as an e(pert 3itness'

/8'0he Plaintiff consulted and 3as e(a&ined by said "r' Nor&inda"a3ag

fro& #pril to &id-June, 2=/8 at intervals of t3o-three ti&es a 3eek 3ith

each session lasting any3here bet3een one 4/7 to four 497hours'

/%'1n order to reach her diagnosis as to the Plaintiffs and Respondents

psychological state, "r' Nor&inda"a3ag conducted intervie3s on the

Plaintiff and his &other as 3ell as a series of tests on the Plaintiff such as

the ouse-0ree-Person test, "ra3-#-Person test, Basic Personality

1nventory, Bender Motor :isual Destalt test, Deneral Medical #bility test,

.uscher ull-Color test, elf-#nalysis, and Eung "epression cale'

/;'"r' Nor&inda"a3ag diagnosed the Plaintiff as having 5istrionic

Personality "isorder6 and the Respondent as having 5Narcissistic

Personality "isorder6'

/@'Because of the above precedents and the incapacity to perfor& the

essential &arital obligations, the Plaintiff filed this present action for

"eclaration of Nullity of Marriage based on Psychological 1ncapacity of

both parties as provided by #rticle 2% of the a&ily Code'

/


4/19

I. T'e %a()ies a(e *s+'olo-iall+ ia*ai)a)e/

a. The psychological incapacities of both

parties are characterized by Gravity,

Juridical Antecedence, and Incurability.

#rticle $% of the a&ily Code provides!

5 A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of the marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization !

1n the case at bar, Plaintiff &ost respectfully sub&its that a "eclaration of

Nullity of Marriage is proper due to the e(istence of Psychological 1ncapacity on

both parties'

1n a long line of cases, the Court has consistently held that psychological

incapacity has not been given a specific definition to Fallo3 so&e resiliency in itsapplication'F Citing the cases of antos vs' Ca 4/


5/19

1n the sa&e Gala3case, the Court described Psychological 1ncapacity as a

serious psychological illness afflicting a party even prior to the celebration of

&arriage that is per&anent as to deprive the party of the a3areness of the duties

and responsibilities of the &atri&onial bond he or she 3as about to assu&e'

1n antos vs' C#, speaking through Justice :itug, the Court stated that

Psychological 1ncapacity refers to no less than a &ental incapacity that causes a

party to be truly incognitive of the basic &arital covenants that conco&itantly

&ust be assu&ed and discharged by the parties to the &arriage' 0he Court

further gave as e(a&ples the &utual obligations of cohabitation, &utual love and

respect, fidelity, and to render help and support'1n this land&ark case, the Court

provided guidelines 3hich 3ould characteriHe a case for psychological incapacity,

in that!

50he incapacity &ust be grave or serious such that the party 3ould beincapable of carrying out the ordinary duties re?uired in &arriageI it &ust berooted in the history of the party antedating the &arriage, although the overt&anifestations &ay e&erge only after the &arriageI and it &ust be incurableor, even if it 3ere other3ise, the cure 3ould be beyond the &eans of theparty involved'6

03o years after providing the guidelines for psychological incapacity in

antos vs' C#, the Court e(panded the guidelines for the interpretation and

application of article $% of the a&ily Code in the leading case of Republic vs'

C#, Molina, to 3it!

54/7 0he burden of proof to sho3 the nullity of the &arriage belongs to theplaintiffI427 0he root cause of the psychological incapacity &ust be 4a7 &edically or

clinically identified, 4b7 alleged in the co&plaint, 4c7 sufficiently proven bye(perts and 4d7 clearly e(plained in the decisionI4$7 0he incapacity &ust be proven to be e(isting at Fthe ti&e of thecelebrationF of the &arriageI497 uch incapacity &ust also be sho3n to be &edically or clinicallyper&anent or incurableI487 uch illness &ust be grave enough to bring about the disability of theparty to assu&e the essential obligations of &arriageI4%7 0he essential &arital obligations &ust be those e&braced by #rticles %@up to ;/ of the a&ily Code as regards the husband and 3ife as 3ell as

#rticles 22=, 22/ and 228 of the sa&e Code in regard to parents and their children' uch non-co&plied &arital obligation4s7 &ust also be stated in thepetition, proven by evidence and included in the te(t of the decisionI

4;7 1nterpretations given by the National #ppellate Matri&onial 0ribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, 3hile not controlling or decisive,should be given great respect by our courtsI4@7 0he trial court &ust order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and theolicitor Deneral to appear as counsel for the state'6


6/19

1n 0e vs' 0e 4200, the Court, in reaching its decision, veered fro& the

Molina case ruling' 1t ruled that the psychological incapacity of the parties should

be resolved on a case-to-case basis according to its o3n facts, guided by

e(perience, the findings of e(perts and researchers in psychological disciplines

and not Aust consider the straight-Aacket ruling of the Molina case as the standard'

peaking through Justice Nachura, the Court e(plained that!

50he unintended conse?uences of Molina, ho3ever, has taken its toll onpeople 3ho have to live 3ith deviant behavior, &oral insanity and sociopathicpersonality ano&aly, 3hich, like ter&ites, consu&e little by little the veryfoundation of their fa&ilies, our basic social institutions' ar fro& 3hat 3asintended by the Court, Molina has beco&e a strait-Aacket, forcing all siHes tofit into and be bound by it' +ittingly or un3ittingly, the Court, in convenientlyapplying Molina, has allo3ed diagnosed sociopaths, schiHophrenics,ny&pho&aniacs, narcissists and the like, to continuously debase and pervert

the sanctity of &arriage'6

1n Reyes vs' Reyes 42=/=7, the Court, speaking through Justice Nachura,

re&inded the Court of the separate state&ent of Justice Padilla in Republic vs'

Molina' 0hat in deciding a case for the nullity of &arriage due to psychological

incapacity the Court should be re&inded that!

5( (( *ach case &ust be Audged, not on the basis of a priori assu&ptions,predilections or generaliHations but according to its o3n facts' 1n the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for annul&ent of &arriage, it is trite tosay that no case is on Fall foursF 3ith another case' 0he trial Audge &ust takepains in e(a&ining the factual &ilieu and the appellate court &ust, as &uchas possible, avoid substituting its o3n Audg&ent for that of the trial court'F

RecogniHing the various Aurisprudence on the &atter, the Court, in the

recent case of Gala3 vs' ernandeH 4January /9, 2=/87, har&oniHed the various

Aurisprudence on Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of &arriage

under #rticle $% of the a&ily Code' Citing the leading cases of antos vs' C#,

Republic vs' C#, Molina, and 0e vs' 0e, the Court declared that the guidelines

established in the cases of antos and Molina have not been abandoned'

o3ever, the Court e&phasiHed that, as in the case of 0e, the provision on

psychological incapacity &ust be interpreted on a case to case basis' 0he Court

clarified its rulings in that!

5.est it be &isunderstood, 3e are not suggesting the abandon&ent of Molina in this case' +e si&ply declare that, as aptly stated by Justice"ante >' 0inga in #ntonio v' Reyes, there is need to e&phasiHe other perspectives as 3ell 3hich should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under #rticle $%' #t the risk of being redundant, 3ereiterate once &ore the principle that each case &ust be Audged, not onthe basis of a priori assu&ptions, predilections or generaliHations butaccording to its o3n facts' #nd, to repeat for e&phasis, courts should


7/19

interpret the provision on a case-to-case basisI guided by e(perience,the findings of e(perts and researchers in psychological disciplines, andby decisions of church tribunals'$

1n the case at bar, Petitioner alleges that both the Petitioner hi&self and

the Respondent suffers fro& psychological incapacity 3hich prevents the& fro&

co&plying 3ith their essential &arital obligations'

0he Petitioner presented docu&entary and testi&onial evidence to

support his allegation' Note3orthy, 3as the e(pert testi&ony of "r'

Nor&inda"a3ag, 3ho diagnosed both of the parties to be psychologically

incapacitated' 0o arrive at this conclusion, "r' "a3ag conducted a battery of tests on the Petitioner' 4insert the test here7' #s for the Respondent, "r' "a3ag

her findings 3ere based on the searching intervie3s conducted on the the

Petitioner and on 4&other of petitioner7'

0he Petitioner 3as diagnosed by "r' Nor&inda"a3ag, an e(pert

psychologist, to be suffering fro& istrionic Personality "isorder 45P"67'

#ccording to the "iagnostic and tatistical Manual of the #&erican Psychiatric

#ssociation 8th *dition 45"M-867, Persons 3ith istrionic Personality "isorder

are e(citable, e&otional, and behave in a colorful, dra&atic, e(troverted fashion'

1t is further provided that persons 3ith such disorders are often unable to

&aintain deep, long-lasting attach&ents'

"M-8 further provides the follo3ing as the "iagnostic Criteria for P"!

# pervasive pattern of e(cessive e&otionality and attention seeking,

beginning in early adulthood and present in a variety of conte(ts, as indicated by

five 4or &ore7 of the follo3ing!

/' 1s unco&fortable in situations in 3hich he or she is not the center of

attention'

2' 1nteraction 3ith others is often characteriHed by inappropriate se(ually

seductive or provocative behavior'

$' "isplays rapidly shifting and shallo3 e(pression of e&otions'

9' Consistently uses physical appearance to dra3 attention to self'

8' as a style of speech that is e(cessively i&pressionistic and lacking in

detail'

3Kalaw vs. Fernandez, G.R.No.13!7, citin" #e vs. #eG.R.No.117$3


8/19

%' ho3s self-dra&atiHation, theatricality, and e(aggerated e(pression of

e&otion'

;' 1s suggestible 4i'e' easily influenced by others or circu&stances7

@' Considers relationships to be &ore inti&ate than they actually are'

Based on her findings, "r' "a3ag further testified that the psychological in

capacity of the Petitioner 3as of such gravity and incurability that even 3ith the

prescribed &edications, the incapacity could, at best, be only &itigated but not

cured' urther, since the incapacity 3as diagnosed to be deeply rooted in the

fa&ily history of the Petitioner, such 3as present even before the celebration of

the &arriage of the Petitioner 3ith the Respondent' 0he incapacity only

&anifested after the &arriage and during their conAugal life'

0he e(pert testi&ony of "r' "a3ag further buttressed the testi&ony of the

Petitioner hi&self that his psychological incapacity 3as characteriHed by such

gravity, Auridical antecedence and incurability' 0hese testi&onial evidence 3ere

clearly and convincingly laid out by the Petitioner in sufficient co&pliance 3ith the

guidelines set forth in antos vs' C#'

1n so far as co&pliance 3ith the guidelines pronounced by the Court in

Republic vs' C#, Molina, the Petitioner has proven sufficient co&pliance 3ith the

said guiding principle' 0o 3it!

4/7 0he burden of proof to sho3 the nullity of the &arriage belongs to

the plaintiff'

Petitioner, through the testi&onies of "r' "a3ag and of hi&self, that

both he and the Respondent 3as diagnosed to be psychologically

incapacitated' 0he docu&entary evidence sub&itted by the

Petitioner, Clinical findings of "r' "a3ag4*(hibit 7clearly declares

that based of tests conducted and based on intervie3s, both parties

3ere incapacitated' #s for the Petitioner, he 3as diagnosed to be

suffering fro& istrionic Personality "isorder 45P"67' #s for the

Respondent 4insert findings here7'

427 0he root cause of the psychological incapacity &ust be 4a7

&edically or clinically identified, 4b7 alleged in the co&plaint, 4c7

sufficiently proven by e(perts and 4d7 clearly e(plained in the decision'


9/19

Based of the uncontroverted e(pert testi&ony of "r' "a3ag, the root

cause of the psychological in capacity of the Petitioner can be traced

fro& his fa&ily history' 0he diagnosis of the &edical e(pert 3as that

the petitioner is suffering fro& istrionic Personality "isorder 45P"67,

and that the Respondent 3asdiagnosed to have 4insert here7'Clinical

tests 4e(hibit 7 on the Petitioner 3as conclusive as to the finding of

such incapacity'

4$7 0he incapacity &ust be proven to be e(isting at the ti&e of the

celebration of the &arriage'

#ccording to the uncontroverted testi&ony of "r' "a3ag, the incapacity

if the Petitioner is deeply rooted fro& his fa&ily history'4insert findings

here7

497 uch incapacity &ust also be sho3n to be &edically or clinically

per&anent or incurable'

Based on the clinical e(a&ination of "r' "a3ag, is indeed suffering

3ith histrionic personality disorder and such disorder causes hi& to be

incapacitated in the perfor&ance of his &arital obligations' >n

crosse(a&ination, "r' "a3ag clarified that 3hile Petitioner 3as

prescribed &edications for his disorder, such &edicines 3ould, at best,

be effective only as to &itigating the adverse effects of the disorder'

487 uch illness &ust be grave enough to bring about the disability of

the party to assu&e the essential obligations of &arriage'

"r' "a3ag, characteriHed the histrionic personality disorder of

Petitioner to be grave and effectively prevented Petitioner fro&

perfor&ing his &arital obligations'4insert findings here7

4%7 0he essential &arital obligations &ust be those e&braced by #rticles %@ up to ;/ of the a&ily Code as regards the husband'

Mr' Cullen, through his personality disorder has &ade hi& incapable of

perfor&ing his &arital obligations &entioned in the #rticles %@ to ;/ of

the a&ily Code, na&ely!


10/19

K 0hat Mr' Cullen has not been observing love and affection for his

3ife evidenced by the fact that Mr' Cullen i&&ediately goes to bed

3henever he co&es ho&e fro& 3ork instead of having a conversation

3ith his 3ife'

K 0hat the Cullens have no fi(ed arrange&ents in &aking e(penses

to support the fa&ily needs'

K 0hat Mr' Cullen has no sense of punctuality in perfor&ing acts

constituting the &anage&ent of the household'

4@7 0he trial court &ust order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the

olicitor Deneral to appear as counsel for the state'

#s the records of the case 3ould reveal, throughout the course of the

petition, tate interest 3as ably represented by the participation of no

less than the assistant solicitor general hi&self'

1n #Hcueta vs' Republic, the Court granted the petition for the declaration of the

nullity of &arriage pre&ised on the psychological incapacity of the husband, after

being convinced that the Petitioner has sufficiently co&plied 3ith the guidelinesset forth in the land&ark case of Molina9' 1n the case at bar, Petitionerhas

sufficiently co&plied 3ith the guidelines of Molina through the substantiation of

testi&onial and docu&entary evidence'

La o *e(soal ea6ia)io /oes o)

ivali/a)e )'e i/i-s o )'e E*e() Wi)ess

Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of &arriage under

#rticle $% of the a&ily Code refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a

party even prior to the celebration of the &arriage that is per&anent as to deprive

the party of the a3areness of the duties and responsibilities of the &atri&onial

bond he or she 3as about to assu&e'

0he lack of personal e(a&ination or assess&ent of the respondent by a

psychologist or psychiatrist is not necessarily fatal in a petition for the declaration

of nullity of &arriage' Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the

nullity of a &arriage, &ay be established by the totality of evidence presented'

%Azc&eta vs. Re'&(lic, G.R.No. 1)*), 2 +ay 2**$


11/19


12/19

1t &ust be re&e&bered that 3hile in the case at bar, only the Plaintiff has

been e(a&ined and thus appears to be unilateral in effect, it is already settled

that the courts &ust accord 3eight to e(pert testi&ony on the psychological and

&ental state of the parties in cases for the declaration of the nullity of &arriages,

for by the very nature of #rticle $% of the a&ily Code the courts, Fdespite having

the pri&ary task and burden of decision-&aking, &ust not discount but, instead,

&ust consider as decisive evidence the e(pert opinion on the psychological and

&ental te&pera&ents of the parties'F

Conse?uently, the lack of personal e(a&ination and intervie3 of the

person diagnosed 3ith personality disorder, like the respondent, did not per se

invalidate the findings of the e(perts' 0he Court has stressed in Marcos v'

Marcos, that there is no re?uire&ent for one to be declared psychologically

incapacitated to be personally e(a&ined by a physician, because 3hat is

i&portant is the presence of evidence that ade?uately establishes the partys

psychological incapacity' ence, Fif the totality of evidence presented is enough

to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual &edical e(a&ination

of the person concerned need not be resorted to'F

1n Halili vs. Santos-Halili and The Republic , petitioner .ester BenAa&in

alleged his o3n psychological incapacity in a petition for declaration of nullity of

his &arriage to Chona' #s petitioner pointed out, he &arried respondent thinking

that such &arriage is a &ere Aoke' #fter the cere&ony, there 3as no

consu&&ation, no se(ual intercourse and he never lived 3ith respondent'

0hese allegations 3ere corroborated by the e(pert 3itness "r' Natividad

"ayan' #s testified to and based on her findings, it 3as found out that petitioner

has &i(ed personality disorder fro& self-defeating personality disorder to

dependent personality disorder and this is brought about by his o3n

dysfunctional fa&ilyI 3ith an abusive and very do&ineering father 3ho treated

the& as robots' e also suffered fro& partner relational proble& during his

&arriage 3ith respondent'

0he upre&e Court then ruled that it has been sufficiently established thatpetitioner had a psychological condition that 3as grave, incurable and had a

deeply rooted cause' 1n citing Te, the court recogniHed that individuals 3ith

diagnosable personality disorders usually have long-ter& concerns, thus, therapy

&ay be long-ter&' Mostly, personality disorders are Flong-standing, infle(ible


13/19

3ays of behaving that are not so &uch severe &ental disorders as dysfunctional

styles of living' 0hese disorders affect all areas of functioning and, beginning in

childhood or adolescence, create proble&s for those 3ho display the& and for

others'6

1n another case entitled De Castro vs. De Castro, Jr., et al ' private

respondent Crispino alleged his o3n psychological inacapacity to perfor& his

&arital obligations by testifying that he 3as i&pulsive and reckless in his youth'

e i&pregnated petitioner 3hile studying and &arried her so as not to e(pose

both their fa&ilies to further hu&iliation' e further stated that their ?uarrels

intensified during the &arriage and for being i&&ature and unable to cope 3ith

their &arital proble&s he abandoned his fa&ily &any ti&es and beca&e involved

in different affairs' e even alleged that they tried to save their &arriage through

counseling, but to no avail' e thereafter left their fa&ily ho&e for good and lived

3ith another 3o&an 3ith 3ho& he had three illegiti&ate children'

#fter a thorough revie3 of the evidence presented including the

testi&onies of private respondent and the e(pert 3itness "ra' Cecilia #lbaran

4psychiatrist7, the Court finds and so holds that both parties are psychologicallyincapacitated to enter into &arriage' 0herefore, the court 3as convinced that

fro& the pieces of evidence there appears sufficient basis to declare the

psychological incapacity of both spouses to enter into &arriage'

0he Court also cited the case of Marcos vs' Marcos 4$


14/19

Bo)' *a()ies 7e(e ia*a8le o *e(o(6i-

esse)ial 6a(i)al o8li-a)ios as *(ovi/e/

i A()s. 9:!;1 o )'e #a6il+ Co/e

51n dissolving &arital bonds on account of either partys psychological

incapacity, the Court is not de&olishing the foundation of fa&ilies, but it is

actually protecting the sanctity of &arriage, because it refuses to allo3 a

person afflicted 3ith a psychological disorder, 3ho cannot co&ply 3ith or

assu&e the essential &arital obligations, fro& re&aining in that sacred

bond' 1t &ay be stressed that the infliction of physical violence,

constitutional indolence or laHiness, drug dependence or addiction, and

psychose(ual ano&aly are &anifestations of a sociopathic personality

ano&aly'.et it be noted that in #rticle $%, there is no &arriage to speak of

in the first place, as the sa&e is void fro& the very beginning'0o indulge in

i&agery, the declaration of nullity under #rticle $% 3ill si&ply provide a

decent burial to a stillborn &arriage'68

II C


15/19

0he task of choosing the parent to 3ho& custody shall be a3arded is not

a &inisterial function to be deter&ined by a si&ple deter&ination of the

age of

a

&inor child' +hether a child is under or over seven years of

age, the para&ount

criterion &ust al3ays be the childs interests' "iscretion is given to the court to

decide 3ho can best assure the 3elfare of

the child, and a3ard the custody on

the basis of that consideration'

Courts &ust not lose sight of the

basic principle that Fin all ?uestions on

the care, custody, education and property of

children, the latters 3elfare shall be

para&ount and that for co&pelling reasons, even a child under seven &ay be

ordered separated fro& the &other'

0he so-called Ftender-age presu&ptionF under #rticle 2/$ of the a&ily

Code

&ay be overco&e only by co&pelling evidence of

the &others unfitness'

#lso, #rticle $ / of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides

that!

1n all actions concerning children, 3hether undertaken by public or private

social 3elfare institutions, courts of la3, ad&inistrative authorities or legislative

bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a pri&ary consideration'

0he principle of

Fbest interest of the child

F pervades Philippine cases

involving adoption, guardianship, support, personal status, &inors in conflict 3ith

the la3, and child custody' 1n these cases, it has long been recogniHed that in

choosing the parent to 3ho& custody is given, the 3elfare of

the &inors should

al3ays be the para&ount consideration' Courts are &andated to take into

account all relevant circu&stances that 3ould have a bearing on the childrens

3ell-being and develop&ent' #side fro& the &aterial resources and the &oral

and social situations of

each parent, other factors &ay also be considered to

ascertain 3hich one has the capability to attend to the physical, educational,

social and &oral 3elfare of the

children' #&ong these factors are the previous

care and devotion sho3n by each of the parentsI their religious background,

https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/23411https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/23411https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/23411https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/23411


16/19

&oral uprightness, ho&e environ&ent and ti&e availabilityI as 3ell as the

childrens e&otional and educational needs'

o3ever, the la3 favors the &other if she is a fit and proper person to

have custody of her children so that they &ay not only receive her attention,care, supervision but also have the advantage and benefit of a &others love and

devotion for 3hich there is no substitute' Denerally, the love, solicitude and

devotion of a &other cannot be replaced by another and are 3orth &ore to a

child of tender years than all other things co&bined' 1f a child is under seven

years of age, the la3 presu&es that the &other is the best custodian' 0he

presu&ption is strong but it is not conclusive' 1t can be overco&e by Fco&pelling

reasonsF'

1t is a(io&atic in our Aurisprudence that in controversies regarding the

custody of &inors the sole and fore&ost consideration is the physical, education,

social and &oral 3elfare of the child concerned, taking into account the

respective resources and social and &oral situations of the contending parents'

Never has this Court diverted fro& that criterion'

1n the case at bar, co&pelling reasons and childs best interest overco&e

the presu&ption that the &other is the best custodian for a child of tender years'

0he petitioner, having courageously assu&ed the roles of both the father and the

&other to the child for so&e considerable length of ti&e, he has e(hibited his

desire and ability to foster an open and loving relationship 3ith her' Continuously

looking out for the &inor childs health, safety, and 3elfare, petitioner has thus

provided, and continues to provide, the &ost suitable physical, e&otional,

spiritual, and psychological environ&ent for Renes&ee'

1n fact, during the cross-e(a&ination of the Petitioner, he 3as able to

establish that the child is taken care of despite his graveyard shift as a call center

agent' 0he 0ranscript of tenographic Notes for the hearing dated January /%,

2=/% revealed that!

( ((

#00O' :1..#N*:#! Oou said that you assu&e both role of &other and

the father' o, you are saying that there are instances that you alone look

after Renes&ee up to these days 3hen she is in your custody

MR' C..*N! Oes, Maa&'


17/19

#00O' :1..#N*:#! Nevertheless, you still kept your graveyard shift

fro&


18/19

needs hi&' +ork-related e&ergencies are less likely to occur co&pared to the

de&ands of the &edical profession, hence, &ore ti&e 3ill be devoted to protect

the interest and 3ell-being of the child' Renes&ee, being only 9 years of age, is

at a crucial stage of develop&ent' #s such, the constant presence of a parent is

essential for her opti&u& develop&ent and holistic gro3th' Petitioners presence

in the everyday life of the &inor child, fro& the &o&ent the latter 3akes up to the

ti&e she sleeps, spells a lot of difference in her develop&ent co&pared to living

3ith a parent 3ho& she seldo& sees or spends ti&e 3ith'

Consistent 3ith the para&ount interest of their child, Renes&ee, sole

custody over her should re&ain 3ith the petitioner'

%RA=ER

W$ERE#ORE, pre&ises considered, Plaintiff &ost respectfully prays that of

this onorable Court the follo3ing!

/' ORDER that a decree of absolute nullity of &arriage bet3een

petitioner and respondent be ISSUED on the ground of both

petitioner and respondents psychological incapacity to perfor& the

essential &arital obligations under #rticle $% of the a&ily CodeI

2' "AINTAIN petitioner in the e(ercise of parental authority, including

custody, over their &inor child pending the proceedings, 3ithout

preAudice to any final ruling on the &atter of parental authority and

custody, or the grant of any interi& visitation rights to respondent,

but al3ays consistent 3ith the principle having due regard 3ith the

best interest of the childI

Petitioner prays for such further or other relief as &ay be Aust or e?uitable,

including but not li&ited to a final deter&ination as to 3ho& a&ong the parties

3ill be a3arded sole parental authority and custody over the &inor child

Renes&ee ' Cullen, as 3ell as any a3ard of visitation rights to the other parent'

CULLEN > ASSOCIATES

'ounsel for (dward 'ullen

%;@ Bloody Bldg', :alero treet, Makati City

0el' No' @/$-899$ to 99


19/19

a( No' @/$-8998

By!

ATT=. ?ACOB WOL# BLAC&

Roll No' /2$98

1BP .ifeti&e No' 89$2/

MC.* Co&pliance No' :-===

Memorandum of Arguments

Documents

Transcript of Memorandum of Arguments