Anda di halaman 1dari 4






PETITIONER in the above-entitled case, by counsel and to this
Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the order dated
June 19, 2013 , a copy of which was received by him on July 4, 2013, upon the
following considerations:
This Honorable Court in denying the Motion to Amend Decision to declare
both marriages of parties held on May 7, 1971 and June 12, 1972 as void. In its
decision, this Court only declared the second marriage held on June 12, 1972 as
null and void. The court in its resolution in denying the motion to amend states
that: _____________________________________________ and the court
could not consider or grant more than what was prayed in the petition.
Petitioner and respondent prior to their marriage on June 12, 1972, are
likewise parties to a marriage solemnized on May 7, 1971. The failure to allege
parties marriage on May 7, 1971 was merely due to inadvertent omission on the
part of the petitioner believing in good faith that the regardless of how many
marriages that has been solemnized between the parties, the turning point is
they are of the same parties to that marriage, of the same circumstances,
situations and the nothing have changed from their first solemnization of
marriage to second solemnization, except from the fact that they married each
other twice.
As can be gleaned from the petition, what was mentioned and prayed

therein to be declared null and void were the parties marriage in general and not
the weddings that were solemnized, regardless of the dates of their marriages
because the cause of action in this case is psychological incapacity of the
respondent and not vitiation of consent or lack of any essential requisites of
When a person is psychologically incapacitated, it cannot be said that he
is psychologically incapacitated when they celebrated their first marriage and he
is not when other marriage ceremony between the parties was contracted. In this
case, it has been settled already that the respondent is suffering from
psychological incapacity when she contracted marriage with the petitioner and
the same is incurable and grave. Therefore, it can be construed that eh
respondent is psychologically incapacitated at the time of the solemnization of
their first marriage and also at the time their second marriage was solemnized.
Even though in the petition and prayer, only the second marriage was
mentioned herein, but what was being prayed to be annulled is the marital union
or the result of the marriage ceremony and not the ceremony itself, therefore,
even though first marriage ceremony was not mentioned in the petition, based on
the facts and circumstance narrated in the petition, the first marriage was
likewise mentioned therein as it is the reckoning point of the marital union of the
parties, except form the fact that the date of their first marriage was not
mentioned therein.
The marriage between petitioner and respondent has long been annulled
through this Courts decision and the same has already become final. Nowhere in
the jurisprudence of this court can it be found that parties to the same marriage
has to undergo another process of nullification of their marriage, even it has
already granted, in case the parties married twice and the what was prayed and
included in the decision was only one of the marriages contracted by the parties.
In the interest of equity and justice, considering that the parties of
marriage solemnized on June 12, 1972 are the same parties in a marriage
solemnized on May 7, 1971 and two marriages have the same facts and
circumstance, but only the marriage dated June 12, 1972 was declared null and
void, the petitioner is entitled to reconsideration.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully and fervently
prayed that the order dated June 19, 2013 be reconsidered and set aside, and a
new one be rendered in favor in favor of herein petitioner, to the end that that the
motion to amend decision be granted.
Muntinlupa City for Quezon City. July 16, 2013


Room 201, Fresnedi Bldg.
National Road, Putatan
Muntinlupa City
Counsel for the Petitioner
Roll No. 41321
IBP No. 930648. February 12, 2013
PTR No. 1227359. January 08, 2013
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0017321

The Branch Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch 225, Quezon City
Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing
Motion for Consideration for hearing on July 19, 2013 at ____ in the morning.


Copy furnished:
Office of the Public Prosecutor
Quezon City

Office of the Solicitor General

Makati City
Bella Diaz Aclan