Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

8th Judicial Region
Branch 21
Laoang Northern Samar

Sheryl Ann Ronato-Alcera,

Petitioner. Civil Case No. 1012
For:
Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage
-versus-

Igmedio F. Alcera V,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

ANSWER

RESPONDENT, through counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully avers the following in
response to the Petition for Declaration of Nullity.

ADMISSION AND DENIALS

1. He admits the allegations in paragraph 1,2,5, 9;

2. He specifically denies each and every material allegations

in the paragraph ;

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AS AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, DEFENDANTS

REPLEAD AND INCORPORATE THE FOREGOING AVERMENTS
AND FURTHER ALLEGE:

3. The allegations in paragraph 3 is denied insofar as the

Respondent’s supposed act of insistence and outburst is
concerned. The truth of the matter being that the dispute
between the farmers was serious and needs urgent

1
 attention that it must be resolved then and there by the
owners of the land, the respondent’s parents, as the
farmers involved were threatening to harm each other.
Respondent declined to intervene in settling the dispute as
the same would be best decided by his parents. Upon
notice to Respondent’s parents, as land owners, they
immediately and voluntarily went home after they
attended a wedding ceremony and skipped the reception
to settle the matters among their tenant- farmers;

4. Paragraph 4 is denied, the truth of the matter being that

the pre-marital sex between petitioner and respondent was
consensual being sweethearts deeply in love with each
other. In so far as the alleged suicide attempt during said
period, Respondent was in Hongkong having a vacation
with his cousins. The allegation of attempted suicide is a
mere conjecture to make it appear that the respondent is
suffering from psychological incapacity early on, there
being no medical report alleged in the complaint. A copy of
Respondent’s round trip plane ticket from Philippines to
Hong Kong dated October 14-23, 2016, is attached as
ANNEX A and made as an integral part of the pleading;

5. Paragraph 6 is denied in so far as the Respondent’s

supposed act of prohibiting petitioner to work, the truth
being that the decision not to work for a period of 6 months
after the wedding ceremony was a consensual so that they
would enjoy their married life together without the hassle
of work. After said period Respondent’s mother offered a
recommendation for petitioner to work in the Governor’s
office but the latter refused the offer. Respondent later
found out through petitioner’s email that the latter is
applying to work abroad. Respondent then pleaded the
petitioner a couple of times to reconsider her decision as
they are only at the early stage of their marriage, but
petitioner only showed annoyance at Respondent’s request
and vehemently reasoned out that the Respondent is
hindering her ambition to be successful;

6. Contrary to allegations in paragraph 7-a, it was petitioner

who initiates fight over petty matters. She was the one who
asserted dominance when fight would ensue, often
threatening the Respondent to leave home knowing that
the latter would always submit and ask for forgiveness
even if the petitioner started the fight;

2
7. The allegations of petitioner in paragraphs 7(b) (c), is not
without reason. The Respondent has been told by his
friends that his wife was at times seen fetched by his ex-
boyfriend in the church after mass. Respondent started
asking the petitioner questions but the latter would only
dismiss the conversation. The information conveyed to
Respondent caused the serious fights between petitioner
and respondent, as the former would always come home
late, lock herself in their bedroom when she got home,
knowing that the Respondent would question her about
her ex-boyfriend. The fights aggravated when mere rumors
were confirmed when Respondent was told by his friend
Juan Miguel, that petitioner was having an affair with his
former boyfriend James Reid who is working as a mailman
in Catarman Post Office. According to Miguel, he saw
petitioner and Reid in Aileen’s Restaurant in Catarman
holding hands and exchanging kisses. The affidavit of
Juan Miguel to this effect is attached as ‘Annex A’ and
made an integral part of this pleading.

8. Paragraph 7(f) is denied, the truth of the matter being that

it was the petitioner who avoided conversations about
having a baby as it would compromise his determined plan
to work abroad.

9. The hospitalization alleged in paragraph 7(g) is not without

reason. The Respondent was heavily burdened as they
kept on fighting over the relationship of the petitioner with
his ex-boyfriend and her plans to work and leave away
from him. Before that day, petitioner left home and said
she will go to her parent’s house in Catubig to cool down.
But that night Ash Ketchup, a friend and owner of Pink
City Hotel called Respondent and over the phone told the
latter that he saw petitioner and his paramour James Reid
checked in the said hotel at around 11:30 pm. (Affidavit of
Ketchup is attached hereto as ANNEX C.) Due to this
information, the Respondent called petitioner many times
but to no avail. Unable to cope up with the frustration,
feeling of betrayal and anger caused by the acts of her wife,
Respondent in a regrettable fashion tried to end his life;

10. The consultation with Dr. Hidago is admitted as

stated in paragraph 7(h). The Respondents parent’s
requested that the former seek the help of a physician
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
3
 incapacity and is not grave enough to prevent him from
complying with essential marital obligations;

11. Contrary to allegations that respondent is suffering

from Histrionic Personality Disorder Coupled with
Dependent Personality Disorder found in paragraph
7(j)(k)(l), Respondent engaged the services of Dr. Quack
Quack to examine if Respondent is suffering from such
personality disorder. The evaluation showed negative
results. Attached herein is the copy of the psychological
evaluation report of Dr, Quack Quack attached as ANNEX
D.

12. Respondent raises by way of an affirmative defense

that the petition FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

12.1 A cursory reading of the petition would show

that it fails to sufficiently allege the element of
gravity and incurability. In the case of Santos vs.
Court of appeals, the Supreme Court enumerated
the three requirements of psychological incapacity;
(a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability.1

12.2 While the petition alleges judicial antecedence,

the petition failed to sufficiently alleged that the
supposed root cause of the respondent’s
psychological incapacity is grave and incurable;

12.3 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.2

1
310 Phil. 21 (1995)
2
Republic vs Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198

4
 13. In the words of the Supreme Court:

“An unsatisfactory marriage, however is not null and

void marriage. No less that the Constitution
recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of
family; it decrees marriage as legally inviolable and
protects from dissolution at the whim of the parties.”3

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that judgment be rendered dismissing the
petition for Decalaration of Nullity of marriage between
petitioner Sheryl Ann Ronato-Alcera and respondent Igmedio F.
Alcera V for failure to show proof that it is null and void under
Article 36 of the family Code.

All other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Catarman, Northern Samar, June 20, 2016.

Atty Keena D. Caimol

Counsel for Respondent
Real St, Brgy 3 San Lorenzo
Rosario Northern Samar
Roll No. 12345
IBP No. 23456/1-3-2016/
Catarman Northern Samar
PTR No. 34567/1-3-2016/
Catraman Northern Samar
MCLE Compliance No. I 2678
MCLE Compliance No. II 3678

Copy hereof received this day of June 20, 2016

3
Perez-Ferraris vs Ferraris, GR 162368 (July 17, 2006)

5
COPY FURNISHED THROUGH PERSONAL SERVICE

Adah Gwynne P. Tobes

Counsel for Petitioner
Brgy. Santol, Catarman Northern Samar
IBP: 885443, 02/10/2016, Catarman Northern Samar
PTR No. 13257, 01/16/2016, Catarman Northern Samar
Roll No. 49586, 4/8/2014, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. IV-459932, 7/09/2016, Davao City

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Tiburcio Espera, messenger of Atty Keena D. Caimol,

herein counsel for Respondent Igmedio F. Alcera V, hereby
certify that I personally delivered Respondent’s answer dated
September June 20, 2016, to Petitioner Sheryl Ann Ronato-
Alcera with address at Brgy 7, Catubig Northern Samar. The
Answer was received by the Petitioner herself.

Tiburcio Espera
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of June,

2016 at Catarman Northern Samar, affiant exhibited to me his
Postal I.D. No. 78990 issued at Rosario Northern Samar.

Atty Ronil Otan

Notary Public
PTR No. 5642/ 11-5-2016
IBP No. 8162/ 11-10-2016
MCLE Compliance No. 7856
Roll No. 7855

Doc No. 11
Page No. 26
Book No. 3
Series of 201

6
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Makati City

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

Catarman Northern Samar