Attorney Asuncion countered that when Paolo and
Mary Ann got married, Paolo only had P20,000 in his bank account.
It was through their combined efforts that they were able
to accumulate savings in the bank.
(Conclusion)
(This story is based on a case in which Ma. Clara B.
Tankeh-Asuncion appeared for the prosecution. The names of
the persons and some places and other identifying aspects
of the case have been changed to protect the innocent, but
the legal facts have not been changed. Except for the name
of the lawyer, the names in this story are fictitious.)
IN his answer seeking the dismissal, for lack of merit, of
Mary Ann Blianca's petition for separation of community property
and support, Paolo Lariata alleged through his lawyer that
when he met with Mary Ann at the country club, she presented
a one-sided separation of property agreement and insisted
that he sign it. Owing to the inequality of the division of
the properties, he refused to sign. Paolo also claimed that
he had not been remiss in his obligation to support Mary Ann
and their daughter Yolanda, despite a reduction in his earnings
due to the adverse publicity generated by the cases she had
filed against him.
Paolo's lawyer also contended that Mary Ann lost her right
to be supported by Paolo because she had left the conjugal
dwelling without just cause and without the knowledge and
consent of Paolo (Article 100 (1) of the Family Code). Also,
her right to be supported was negated under Article 72 of
the Family Code because she had filed criminal and civil cases
against Paolo "in a brazen attempt to compel him to agree
to the one-sided separation of property agreement, bringing
danger, dishonor and irreparable injury to his reputation
and career." Moreover, the filing of these cases and
the resulting adverse publicity and legal expenses had severely
reduced Paolo's finances and his chances of being offered
contracts and work in his career as a singer, Paolo's lawyer
added.
Most of all, the lawyer continued, Mary Ann's right to receive
support from Paolo had yet to be determined by the court in
view of his compulsory counterclaim for declaration of nullity
of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code - an
action that would dispute her status as Paolo's wife. Per
Article 36 of the Family Code, psychological incapacity is
a basis for declaring a marriage null and void. Paolo's lawyer
alleged that because of her emotional immaturity and instability,
Mary Ann was unable to discharge her essential marital obligations
to Paolo and Yolanda, to the extent that she finally left
their dwelling with the child without her husband's consent
and then returned to the States. But without psychiatric test
results indicating emotional immaturity/instability on Mary
Ann's part and the capacity to develop the deep and mature
interpersonal relationship essential to marriage on Paolo's
part, the argument for annulling the marriage was weak. In
fact, Paolo's sudden departure for the United States in February
1996, while preliminary hearings were being held by the assistant
city prosecutor and a departure hold order had not yet been
issued, combined with Mary Ann's testimony and supported by
witnesses, that he had treated her violently and abusively
during and after her pregnancy, worked against Paolo's attempt
to invoke Article 36. In her answer to Paolo's counterclaims,
Mary Ann's counsel Maria Clara B. Tankeh-Asuncion maintained
that Paolo had "no right in fact and in law to assume
his counterclaim for declaration of nullity of marriage will
be granted in order to defeat the instant case and therefore
they are governed by the absolute community of property as
he is not with clean hands to ask for the same."
As for Paolo's argument that the division of property Mary
Ann presented was one-sided, Attorney Asuncion asserted that
Paolo had already agreed to it before they met at the country
club, as the sharing was only 25 percent for Mary Ann and
75 percent for him. She reiterated that Mary Ann was forced
to leave the conjugal dwelling, having been driven out by
Paolo, and that she had to leave for the States thereafter
because of Paolo's threats to snatch Yolanda once their marriage
ended - little Yolanda, whom Paolo had never asked about,
called, visited or supported. Mary Ann had no recourse but
to file a criminal case against Paolo, Attorney Asuncion said,
to protect her interests, as he had been transferring their
community property under his name alone while falsely stating
his status as single. As a consequence, Attorney Asuncion
said, a warrant for Paolo's arrest had already been issued,
but he was still hiding in the United States, a fugitive from
justice with his passport canceled by the Department of Foreign
Affairs of the Philippines.
As a second counterclaim, Paolo's lawyer alleged that his
client had accumulated, through his sole efforts, an estate
with an estimated aggregate value of P8 million. He argued
that based on the rules on co-ownership under Article 147
or on partnership under Article 148 of the Family Code, the
parties are only entitled to participate to the extent of
their respective contributions. Thus, Paolo's lawyer went
on, Mary Ann's rights should be determined by the court only
after considering the support due Paolo's children with Nimfa
Carilo, with Marietta Ponse and with Mary Ann herself, and
after determining which properties were acquired during Paolo's
marriage with Nimfa and which properties were acquired during
his marriage with Mary Ann.
To this, Attorney Asuncion countered that when Paolo and
Mary Ann got married, Paolo only had P20,000 in his bank account.
It was through their combined efforts, Attorney Asuncion said,
that they were able to accumulate savings in the bank and
acquire the properties that were the subject of the petition.
Furthermore, Paolo was not supporting Rosalie, his daughter
by Nimfa Carilo, and did not recognize Paolita as his child
with Marietta Ponse. Paolo had never seen, visited, much less
supported Paolita in seven years, but now he "boldly
impleads her for his material gain and evil intents,"
Attorney Asuncion pointed out. |
Regarding Paolo's third counterclaim concerning visitation
rights, that he had not been allowed to visit Yolanda, Attorney
Asuncion replied that from the time he threw Mary Ann and
Yolanda out of the conjugal abode, Paolo had shown no interest
in visiting the child, and it was Mary Ann who begged him
to visit her. And when Paolo finally did, he stayed for only
around two minutes. Paolo's fourth, fifth and sixth counterclaims
were for actual and moral damages totaling P5,300,000 and
payment of attorney's fees in the amount of P1 million plus
P500,000 as costs of suit. Paolo contended that his image
was vital to his livelihood, and as a result of Mary Ann's
"media barrage" of false accusations, his career,
which was about to take off after having slowed down for some
time, was halted and ruined. Also, he said that her causing
untruthful statements to be published or broadcast, especially
her request for an immediate departure-hold order, had caused
him serious anxiety, sleepless nights, a tarnished reputation
and serious embarrassment.
Attorney Asuncion replied that if ever Paolo's career was
ruined, it was because of his own doing, brought about by
his involvement in the pop music award scam. She added that
during this crisis in Paolo's life, Mary Ann was the only
one who stood by him, giving him all the support he needed.
As for the hold-departure order, Mary Ann sought it lest Paolo
leave for the States, as in fact he already did, "without
any intention of returning because of the instant case and
his lack of sincerity to save his marriage, thinking he can
always run away scot-free from all his follies, by filing
instant counterclaims, most specifically the declaration of
nullity of marriage." Paolo's failure to reconcile with
Mary Ann, Attorney Asuncion continued, caused her to lose
potential business opportunities amounting to about P3 million
a year, income that was needed for the support of their family
while he was not working and earning. Thus, Paolo should pay
Mary Ann actual damages in the amount of P3 million for lost
business opportunities plus US$60,000 for the personal effects
unjustly withheld by him.
Finally, Attorney Asuncion argued, since Paolo's answer with
counterclaims was not verified by him, it was hearsay in accordance
with Section 6, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and therefore
should be denied. In view of all the foregoing, Attorney Asuncion
asked the court to grant Mary Ann's petition; to uphold the
validity of the marriage of the parties, the indissolubility
of their marriage bonds, the legitimacy of their child, and
the absolute community of property during their marriage,
all with the end in view of preserving the family; to deny
Paolo's counterclaims for damages and attorney's fees and
instead to order him to compensate Mary Ann for actual damages
earlier specified; and to declare Paolo as the party who had
contracted the marriage in bad faith, and who therefore was
not entitled to any of the reliefs he had prayed for in his
counterclaims.
Through his lawyers and backed up by his parents, Paolo Lariata
continued fighting Mary Ann's petition for separation of absolute
community of property and support. The Lariatas felt that
Mary Ann had brought very little to the community property
and her lawsuit only confirmed their suspicion that she married
their son for his money, especially the properties they had
bequeathed to him. But their opposition faltered when the
criminal case filed against Paolo for bigamy and falsification
of a public document prospered. In July 1996, the assistant
city prosecutor, noting Paolo's "consistent failure to
submit controverting evidence despite subpoena duly served,"
found prima facie evidence of bigamy, Paolo having contracted
a subsequent and second marriage with Nimfa Carilo when he
was still legally married to Janet Barnes. There was also
prima facie evidence of falsification of a public document,
Paolo having declared his civil status as "single"
in his marriage contract with Nimfa Carilo.
A warrant for Paolo's arrest was subsequently issued and
his passport was canceled, which meant that he could not come
back to the Philippines. This turn of events gave Paolo and
his parents no choice but to agree to negotiations for a property
settlement in exchange for the dropping of the criminal case,
which everyone knew had been filed by an employee in the law
office of Mary Ann's lawyer. By April 1997, the lawyers had
worked out a compromise agreement whereby Mary Ann and Paolo
agreed to dissolve their conjugal property partnership and
divide their properties with all properties considered paraphernal,
including earnings from her separate income, profession or
business going to Mary Ann plus all the jewelry, P5 million
and real estate property in Tagaytay. All properties considered
capital, including those derived from his separate income
or business, were adjudicated to Paolo as his own separate
property, such as three cars, shares of stock in the gift
shop, a condominium unit in Pasig City and real estate properties
in Batangas and Cavite. Mary Ann would have custody of and
support Yolanda, but Paolo would be entitled to visitation
rights. The court approved the compromise agreement as the
decision ending the civil case and Mary Ann's witnesses signed
a desistance, clearing the way for Paolo's counsel to move
for the dismissal of the criminal charges against him. Mary
Ann did not object when Paolo's lawyer presented documents
to the court in pursuit of his counterclaim for the declaration
of the nullity of the marriage. The court, finding that Paolo
was still legally married to Janet Barnes when he married
Mary Ann, declared their marriage void ab initio for being
bigamous. That ended Paolo Lariata's third marriage, but not
his woes. He remains in the United States, unable to return
home because his passport was canceled, while Mary Ann Blianca
is now happily married in Seattle to a business executive
who has legally adopted Yolanda.
|
