Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 22, Makati City
EDWARD X. CULLEN,
Plaintiff,
-versus-
Civil Case No. 1234454
For: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage under Article 36
of the Family Code
ISABELLA W. SALVADOR-CULLEN
Defendant.
X==================================X
TRANSCRIPT
of the stenographic notes taken during the
pre-trial and held at the Sala
of this Court on 9 January 2016, at 4:00 P.M.
before the HON. MARJORIE UYENGCONOLASCO, Presiding Judge.
PRESENT:
FOR THE COURT:
Ms. JOANNA MARIN
Branch Clerk of Court
Ms. CLEMENTINE VILLANUEVA
Stenographer
APPEARANCE:
Atty. ALEJANDRO UNTALAN
Plaintiff Counsel
Atty. BERNHARD FULGENCIO
Defense Counsel
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
Atty. ADRIAN TADENA
Counsel from the Office of the Solicitor General
X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
(AFTER THE CASE WAS CALLED)
COURT:
Appearances?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Atty. Alejandro Untalan
for the plaintiff Mr. Edward X. Cullen
COURT:
Good afternoon. Where is the petitioner?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
He’s here Your Honor.
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Atty. Bernhard Fulgencio
representing the respondent Ms. Isabella W. Salvador-Cullen
COURT:
Is the respondent present?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
Alright. And for the State?
ATTY. TADENA:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. I am Atty. Adrian Tadena
representing the office of the Solicitor General.
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
COURT:
Why are you so interested in this case?
ATTY. TADENA:
Because the case is controversial your Honor.
COURT:
Ok. For today I will recognize the OSG. The lawyer from the
OSG is appearing instead of the trial prosecutor. This case is
scheduled for pre-trial today. The case already underwent before
the branch clerk of court and we have the minutes for the
preliminary conference. Do you have anything to add to what was
taken up during the preliminary conference?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
For the petitioner, none.
COURT:
How about the stipulations? I see that the minutes of the
preliminary conference did not enumerate any stipulation of facts,
just the general statement that “the parties guided by their pretrial briefs, agreed upon the facts proposed by the petitioner in his
pre-trial brief. The petitioner disagreed with the proposed
stipulation of the respondent in her pre-trial brief.” Yun lang. Let
us clarify this portion ha. Next time when you make the minutes of
the preliminary conference, it should contain the stipulations not
just a reference to the pre-trial brief or other documents. Let us
clarify from the respondent. Atty. Fulgencio, it is stated in the
minutes that the respondent is admitting the proposed stipulation
of facts of the petitioner. All of them?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
You are referring to item 3 of the petitioner’s pre-trial brief?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor.
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
COURT:
All of these are admitted?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor. In item 3 from paragraph 4 to paragraph 22.
COURT:
Now for the respondent’s proposals for stipulations, the
petitioner has not admitted or is not willing to admit any of the
proposals for stipulations?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
For the petitioner your Honor, the stipulation of facts stated
in the pre-trial brief of respondents are simply the issues of the
case.
COURT:
These are not stipulation of facts. What you have here are
not stipulations of facts. These are actually the issues to be
resolved during the trial and naturally the petitioner is not
expected to stipulate on these. Otherwise, tapos na. Remember
when you make proposals for stipulation of facts, you are referring
to facts. You want the other party to admit. Can you have a revised
stipulation of facts from the respondent’s side? What will be your
proposals?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
The respondent proposes to stipulate that he has without
knowledge or information to formulate with regards to paragraph
2.10 of the petitioner’s petition.
COURT:
You want the petitioner to admit that? Atty. Untalan, you’ve
heard the proposal for admission.
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Admitted.
COURT:
You’re admitting that the respondent has no personal
knowledge?
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
ATTY. UNTALAN:
No Your Honor.
COURT:
Yun nga eh. And again I remind you. When you make your
proposal, it must be something that you know the other party
might be able to admit or stipulate. Otherwise, it’s useless. Kung
ikaw ang nasa petitioner’s side, what will be matters, relevant
matter pertaining to your defense which might be admitted by the
other party. The respondent is contesting the nullity di ba? Why?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
The respondent is contesting the nullity because she and the
petitioner are not psychologically incapacitated.
COURT:
Not psychologically incapacitated, you have that theory,
your objective and then from there you break it down. This is your
premise. This is your defense. This petition should be contested
because neither of the parties are psychologically incapacitated.
What is your support for that? What will be your supporting facts
and evidence? You break it down and then based on this find these
facts which might be stipulated upon by the other party. That’s
how you make proposals for stipulations. You have to make it
subtle. Meaning to say, hindi pwede yung blatant na ganito kasi for
sure hindi yan iaadmit ng kabila like your proposal that the parties
are not psychologically incapacitated. Obviously the petitioner will
deny that because the petitioner precisely filed this case on the
ground that both of them are psychologically incapacitated so if
this is your theory and your defense that they are not
psychologically incapacitated, what will be your supporting facts
and evidence regarding that? That’s how you get your stipulations.
What are your proposals for stipulations again?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
We propose to stipulate that the respondent had a constant
communication with the petitioner when she was out of the
country training at Stanford.
COURT:
Admitted or denied?
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
ATTY. UNTALAN:
The petitioner denies that.
COURT:
Why is the petitioner denying this?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Because on the petition, the respondent even when she is in
the Philippines the respondent fails to communicate or to answer
the calls of the petitioner when the petitioner calls.
COURT:
What else? Any other proposal for stipulation?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
The respondent proposes that she was able to provide
support for her family also when she was training outside of the
country at Stanford.
COURT:
Admitted or denied?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
The petitioner deny the proposal for stipulation
COURT:
Why?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
In the petition, since the petitioner is the father, he already
alleged that he provides for the family.
COURT:
So there was absolutely no participation on the part of the
respondent in providing support?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
Are you sure of that?
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
Will you be able to prove that the upkeep and support of
the family was shouldered by the petitioner alone with no
participation on the part of the respondent?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor. The petitioner has a means because he is
employed as a call center agent.
COURT:
Alright. Any other proposal for stipulation?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Your Honor, the respondent would also like to propose that
during the time when she was in Cagayan she also had constant
communication with the petitioner.
COURT:
Admitted or denied?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
The petitioner denies the proposed stipulation because it is
the attitude of the respondent that she will live the house, their
conjugal dwelling not to communicate with the husband or with
the family when she’s outside the area.
COURT:
What else?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
The respondent would also like to propose that her training
in Stanford was with the consent of the petitioner; that the
petitioner gave his consent to the respondent in order for her to
go to Stanford and conduct her training.
COURT:
The respondent’s training in Stanford was with the consent
of the petitioner?
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor
COURT:
Admitted or denied?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
The petitioner denies. The respondent failed to get the
permission of the petitioner for her study in Stanford.
COURT:
You mean to say the respondent left for Stanford without
the prior consent of the petitioner?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
How was she able to leave without getting the consent of
the petitioner? There was really no consent given?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Although the petitioner knows that the respondent will be
leaving for abroad, he has to idea that the respondent will study in
Stanford.
COURT:
So the petitioner is willing to admit that he knows that the
petitioner was leaving for abroad? Correct?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
What else? Any other proposal for stipulation?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Your Honor, in relation to the custody of Renesmee Cullen,
the respondent respectfully proposes that she earns P150,000.00 a
month.
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
COURT:
Admitted or denied?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
The petitioner denies the stipulation because the
respondent has no job or she has the means to get that earning
and is in school studying for the furtherance of her profession.
COURT:
What else?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Your Honor, the respondent respectfully proposes that, also
with regards to the custody of Renesmee Cullen, that Renesmee
Cullen is her dependent under her tax records from which the
petitioner have made his waiver to make Renesmee the
respondent’s dependent.
COURT:
So Renesmee is the respondent’s dependent in the tax
records?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
Admitted or denied?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
The petitioner denies the proposed stipulation because their
child Renesmee, their tax declaration they declared as joint
dependent, as their dependent.
COURT:
Does the respondent agree to that? That Renesmee is a joint
dependent or the dependent of both the petitioner and the
respondent?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
No Your Honor.
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
COURT:
What else? Any other proposals?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Your Honor, the respondent wants to propose that fact that
her work hours is from 8pm to 5pm.
COURT:
You think the petitioner will be willing to admit that given
that earlier they already stated that or they denied your proposal
for stipulation regarding the P150,000.00 monthly income on the
ground that apparently the respondent had no job. So if it’s the
petitioner’s contention that the respondent had no job, you think
that the petitioner will be willing to stipulate that the respondent’s
working hours are as you said 8pm to 5pm ba? Or you want to
withdraw that proposal?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
I would like to withdraw that proposal. (26:32)
COURT:
Do you have any other proposal for stipulation? Earlier you
said that you were admitting everything, the proposals for
stipulations of the petitioner, all of item 3 number 4 to 22. It also
contains the fact of the marriage of the petitioner and that the
petitioner and the respondent has a common child, Renesmee and
the custody is with the petitioner. We have no issue regarding the
custody over the child?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
We have, your Honor.
COURT:
What is your issue regarding that? You want the custody to
be transferred to the respondent?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
How about the support? Who supports the child?
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
We also like to ask for a respective support from the
petitioner.
COURT:
But the child is with the petitioner. You mean to say even if
the child is with the petitioner you are asking support from the
petitioner?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
Why? What will be your basis?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Because the petitioner is the father of Renesmee. He also
has the obligation to support the child.
COURT:
But who is supporting the child right now?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
It is the petitioner.
COURT:
The petitioner is the one supporting and custody is also with
the petitioner. What will be your legal basis for asking for support
for a child who is being supported and under the custody of the
petitioner? There will be no basis for that. It will be different if for
example the child is with you and you allege that the petitioner is
not providing any support but obviously since the child is with the
petitioner that’s not disputed that the present situation is that the
child is in the custody of the petitioner so obviously the one
supporting the child is the petitioner so what will be the basis for
the respondent to ask for support?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Therefore, your honor, we would just like to withdraw the
request for support only for the custody. 33:18
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
COURT:
So with those additions the other matters in the minutes of
the preliminary conference are satisfactory to both the petitioner
and respondent?
ATTY. UNTALAN and ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
How about the State? Mr. OSG?
ATTY. TADENA:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
The State does not have any proposals for stipulation or any
evidence to be presented?
ATTY. TADENA:
None Your Honor.
COURT:
But you will choose to conduct cross –examination on the
witnesses?
ATTY. TADENA:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
Both the petitioner’s and the respondent’s witnesses?
ATTY. TADENA:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
All of the exhibits mentioned in the preliminary conference
for both the petitioner and the respondent were already marked?
Already here? Complete?
CLERK OF COURT:
Yes Your Honor.
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
With respect to the respondent we would like to submit
these two pieces of evidence which were previously provisionally
marked during the preliminary conference.
COURT:
What are these exhibits?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Exhibit #5 Completion Certificate from Cagayan Provincial
Hospital and Exhibit #9.
COURT:
You’re submitting the originals or certified copies only?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
We are submitting the originals your Honor with the Clerk of
Court.
COURT:
Alright. Please have it noted. And you want a transfer of the
markings on the photocopies to the originals?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor
COURT:
Alright. Kindly transfer the markings Ms. Clerk of Court.
Cancel the provisional marking on the photocopy and have it
noted that it was transferred to the original
(THE CLERK OF COURT DOES THE MARKINGS)
COURT:
How about for the petitioner? All the exhibits are originals
or certified copies?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
COURT:
No additional exhibits to be submitted today? None?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
None Your Honor.
COURT:
How about the respondent?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
None Your Honor.
COURT:
All of your exhibits were attached to the judicial affidavits of
your witnesses?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Your Honor, with respect to the respondent, we will submit
later on the attachments for the judicial affidavit.
COURT:
But you were able to submit the judicial affidavits? Not yet?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
We were able to submit the judicial affidavits.
COURT:
Ah eto Exhibit 1 to 2. You mean to say exhibits 3 to 11 were
not attached to the judicial affidavit of Isabella and Chezmos?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
Why not?
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Because of technical difficulties Your Honor in procuring the
copies. We were not able to completely attach all of these to the
judicial affidavits.
COURT:
But these exhibits were already marked so you have them.
It’s just a matter of attaching them to the judicial affidavits.
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
We were not able to...We decided Your Honor to submit it
once we have gathered all the evidence such as this evidence that
I have given to the Clerk of Court for markings Your Honor.
COURT:
But today is already the pre-trial so you should have at least
made sure that during the pre-trial these exhibits were already
attached to the judicial affidavits. If you have a complete set then
you can attach it. Do you have a complete set?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Your Honor, we have the complete set with the Clerk of
Court.
COURT:
No, attached to the judicial affidavits.
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Not yet Your Honor.
COURT:
What can the petitioner say about this?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
The petitioner would like to move that the evidence or
exhibits mentioned in the petition which were not attached in the
judicial affidavits be expunged from the records of the court.
COURT:
What will be your basis for that?
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Because under the judicial affidavit rule, it is stated that if
the if the testimony of the witnesses refers to a document he may
attach that document as an exhibit and if he wants to retain the
original, he can.
COURT:
So what is the effect if the exhibits are not attached to the
judicial affidavit?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
It will not form part of the judicial affidavit.
COURT:
What is the reason again Mr. Fulgencio for failure to submit
the attachments?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Your Honor, there was a delay in procuring the copies of
these two exhibits that have previously have the clerk of court
mark. That is the reason for our delay in submitting the evidence.
COURT:
Is that reason acceptable to the petitioner? Yes or no? Do
you think it’s a valid cause Atty. Untalan?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
For the petitioner, we are not willing to accept.
COURT:
It’s not a valid cause? So if that happens to you, you will not
consider it as a valid cause?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Your Honor, I would like to manifest something. I would like
to manifest that early on we have an agreement with the lawyers
of the petitioner regarding our late submission of these exhibits to
be attached to the judicial affidavits. And earlier on they assented
to our request.
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
COURT:
Do you confirm that? There was this gentlemen’s
agreement.
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Before this court has come into session, the opposing
counsel approached me that they cannot provide the documents
because of some reason and I told him that we will oppose his
motion to accept those documents or reason and he will be the
one to explain to the court to give a valid reason.
COURT:
Do you have a recommended fine or I will ask the State?
State na lang.
ATTY. TADENA:
P1,000.00
COURT:
I am adapting the recommendation made by the OSG lawyer
so a fine of P1000.00 will be imposed upon the respondent and it
will be paid at the same time the compliant judicial affidavit will be
submitted. When will the compliant judicial affidavit be
submitted?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
By Monday Your Honor.
COURT:
Through LBC?
ATTY. FULGENCIO:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
No other matters to be changed in the minutes of the
preliminary conference? Petitioner and respondent, none?
ATTY. FULGENCIO and ATTY. UNTALAN:
None Your Honor.
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
COURT:
Can we now adapt the minutes of the preliminary
conference with the modifications and clarifications made today
for purposes of pre-trial?
ATTY. FULGENCIO and ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
Can we now terminate pre-trial? We will just set the trial
dates. The petitioner will be presented next week?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
And the second witness the week after?
ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
For the defendant, February 6 and the second witness
February 13.These are the trial dates that we have. So can we now
terminate pre-trial?
ATTY. FULGENCIO and ATTY. UNTALAN:
Yes Your Honor.
COURT:
Pre-trial is now terminated. Set this case for the initial
presentation of...actually can we change the headings of this case?
Instead of petitioner and respondent, let’s change it to plaintiff
and defendant to make it uniform. Edward Cullen will testify on
January 16. Any other matters or manifestations from counsels?
ATTY. FULGENCIO and ATTY. UNTALAN:
None Your Honor.
X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234454
TSN – 9 January 2016
C.S.M. Villanueva
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing transcript is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
ability.
Makati City, Philippines, 9 January 2016.
CLEMENTINE S.M. VILLANUEVA
Stenographer