Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Republic of the Philippines

6th Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Branch 43 - Bacolod City

CIVIL CASE NO. 14-2169

For: Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of Marriage on the Ground
Psychological Incapacity with prayer
for other relief

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PETITIONER, MARIA M. SANTOS, through the undersigned
counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:
Petitioner MARIA M. SANTOS (hereinafter referred to as
Petitioner) is 47 years of age, married on paper to Respondent but no
longer living together as shall be explained below, Filipino and a resident of
Lot 1, Block 51, San Dionisio, Bacolod City, place within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court sitting as a Family Court;
For purposes of this case, however, Petitioner may be served
with notice and other processes through the undersigned counsel in his
address herein-below provided;
Respondent WILSON SANTOS (hereinafter referred to as
Respondent) is 47 years of age, married on paper to Petitioner, Filipino
and a resident of Estancia Subdivision, Bacolod City, where he may be
served with summons and other processes on this Honorable Court;

Petitioner was born on November 12, 19661 in the Municipality
of Cauayan, Negros Occidental; she has four (4) siblings;
She took her Bachelor of Science in Commerce, Major in
Accounting at West Negros University (WNU), Bacolod City and graduated
therefrom in 1987;
Respondent, on the other hand, took up Bachelor of Science in
Commerce, Major in Data Processing in the same university;
Petitioner and Respondent officially met at the Supreme
Student Government of West Negros University, when they ran under the
same political party and eventually won respective seats;
What started out as friendship eventually blossomed into
something else when Respondent showed signs of affection towards
Petitioner and treated her specially;
Respondent courted Petitioner before their college graduation,
on or about February of 1987. What eventually won Petitioner over was the
fact that Respondent was always there for her whenever she needed him;
10. Further prompted by curiosity as she never had any relationship
before Respondent, Petitioner readily gave her yes to Respondent on April
4, 1987;
11. On May 15, 1987, Petitioner departed for Manila to work in an
outreach program as a student missionary while Respondent was left in
Negros to teach at WNU sometime in June of 1987;
12. Their long-distance relationship did not last long as Petitioner
went back home on November 1987 to teach Management at WNU.
Petitioner taught in the university until March of 1988;
13. At that time, Petitioners parents, particularly her mother, was
against her relationship with Respondent, as she knew for a fact that his
family, particularly his father, had a reputation of having extramarital affairs.
Petitioners mother tried to dissuade her and separate them to no avail;


14. On the last week of March 1988 and in utter disregard of her
mothers admonitions, Petitioner eloped with Respondent to Binalbagan,

Copy of Petitioners Certificate of Birth is hereto attached as ANNEX A.

Negros Occidental, where they stayed in Respondents house alongside his

15. A week after, to Petitioners surprise, Respondents parents
were already planning Petitioners and Respondents marriage. They did not,
however, process their marriage license;
16. Petitioner and Respondent were both twenty (20) years old at
the time, however, no parental consent was sought on the part of Petitioner,
no counseling happened, and no parental advice was given;
17. Thus, without Petitioners parents knowing of the said marriage
plans, Petitioner and Respondent got married in haste, on the house of
Respondent in Binalbagan on April 3, 1988, and said marriage celebration
being officiated by Municipal Trial Judge Raphael C. Cruz;
18. However, it should be noted that in the marriage contract, it was
made to appear that Petitioner was already twenty-five (25) years old when
she was only 20 years old at that time and that the place of marriage was at
the HOUSE OF THE BRIDE when in fact, it took place at the house of
the groom in Binalbagan, Negros Occidental2;
19. Petitioner and Respondent stayed in Binalbagan after their
marriage until May. On June 1988, they transferred to Brgy. Villamonte,
Bacolod City where they rented a house;
20. During this time, Petitioner stopped working. At this stage of
their marriage, Petitioner noticed that Respondent was palabarkada and
was always out with his friends;
21. It was in 1994 that Petitioner started working again to help in
the household expenses. She taught full-time in WNU while enrolled under
the Masters in Public Administration (MPA) program in the same university;
22. In 1996, Petitioner was given a scholarship in the Masters in
Business Administration (MBA) Program of the University of St. La Salle,
which she was not able to finish because of financial constraints;
23. While working, Petitioner and Respondent were members of
the Labor Union of WNU, Respondent in particular, being very active in the
affairs of the Union as he became an officer of such;

This fact is evidenced by the pertinent Marriage Contract, copy of which is hereto
attached and incorporated as ANNEX B and made an integral part hereof;


In 1997, they already had four (4) children of their own3;

25. However, in 1998, Respondent left WNU and worked at the

Bacolod City Hall as an Executive Assistant;
26. It was at this time that Petitioner and Respondent were always
rushing and busy. Petitioner noticed that every time Respondent went home,
the latter would always argue with the former over petty things. When they
had a problem at home and with the kids, he would always attribute the
blame to Petitioner to the bewilderment of the latter. A typical source of
their conflict would be problems about money (or the lack thereof) and
Respondent would always be irritable whenever they talked about such;
27. Respondent would also always verbally abuse Petitioner with
hurtful and insulting words, as if she was not his wife. He would use foul
language to dismiss her like she was not a part of his life and all of these
amounted to emotional and psychological abuse on the part of Petitioner on
top of having to fend for their familys needs alone;

These episodes of verbal abuse became more and more

29. When they were both working in WNU, Petitioner would

always hear stories from students and co-teachers that Respondent had a lot
of flings with other girls;
30. In fact, one of Petitioners co-teachers one day approached her
and confided that Respondent attempted to court her even while he was still
married to Petitioner;
31. When Respondent started working at the City Hall and
Petitioner was working at WNU, Petitioner noticed that she was the one who
always shouldered their expenses at home. Respondent seldom shared in the
load to provide for their familys needs even when his salary was way bigger
than that of Petitioners;
32. Respondents uncle once told Petitioner about Respondents
extramarital affairs and tendencies. Fed up from all the reports regarding his
womanizing, Petitioner decided to probe into the matter;
33. Petitioner perceived that Respondent would go home really late,
way past midnight, at dawn, and when the sun was already about to rise;
34. Petitioner also noticed that Respondent would never part with
his cellular phone. He would always hold it even while asleep;

Copies of the childrens Birth Certificates are hereto attached as ANNEX C to


35. One time, past midnight, Petitioner woke up and saw

Respondents cellphone under his bed. When she checked it, she read a lot of
messages from a girl whose number had no name assigned to it. Said
messages contained communications and exchanges of endearment between
Respondent and the said girl;
36. Afterwards, Petitioner noticed that whenever she checked the
phone, the same number would have a different name each time;
37. Petitioner decided to call the number using Respondents
cellphone. A womans voice answered from the other line and addressed
Respondent with a term of endearment saying subsequently, May problema
kamo da? Mahapit ka diri sa balay karon?;
38. Petitioner and her friends started to investigate and found out
that the woman, a certain Cathy Rodriguez, was also working with
Respondent at the City Hall;
39. Respondent denied everything but Petitioner talked to the girl
personally. The girl admitted her relationship with Respondent and promised
to cut her ties with the latter and to never enter into the same relationship
40. However, this did not happen as Respondent continued his
extramarital affair with Cathy; It came to a point when Petitioner and a
friend went to the house of the girl and found Respondents clothes hanging
outside, left to dry;
41. There was also another incident wherein Petitioner,
Respondent, the paramour and Petitioners friend had a confrontation at the
house of the paramour where Respondent was already residing. At that time,
Respondent asked Petitioner to leave while he stayed behind;
42. Respondent then never came back home to fulfill his
obligations to his family. Petitioner was left carrying the burden by herself.
She had to find ways for their three (3) children to go to school without
starving themselves to death;
43. She would borrow money from almost anyone at school so that
she can provide for her familys needs. All this time, Respondent never came
back to check on their children nor did he show signs that he remembered
them and cared for them;
44. In short, Respondent abandoned Petitioner, his family and his
obligations towards them for the sake of another woman and has clearly no
plans of going back or ever fulfilling his obligations;

45. This said experience of Petitioner with Respondent led her to

become inefficient in her work; She was juggling her career and family and
had to fend for the latter all by herself. For lack of financial resources, she
had to put plans for career and personality development on the backburner;
46. To make matters worse, Respondent contracted a second
marriage with his paramour even while his marriage to Petitioner was still
47. Despite what happened between the parties, Petitioner still tried
again and again, to save the marriage by trying to communicate with
Respondent and by seeking the help of Respondents relatives and close
48. Serious about keeping their family together, Petitioner even
BEGGED Respondent to stay. Petitioner was never remiss on exerting
sincere and earnest efforts towards reconciliation. Petitioner even manifested
the intention to accept Respondent once more, to no avail;
49. Finally, Petitioner, convinced of the futility of her efforts,
decided that she deserves to start life anew with the promise of hope for a
better future since there is apparently no hope that Respondent can fulfill or
cope with his obligations as her husband and as a father;
50. As shown by all the foregoing, it is clear that Respondent is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital
obligations, his incapacity being already existing at the time of the marriage
but became manifest only after the celebration of the marriage;
51. The incapacity of Respondent is likewise grave, serious and not
brought about by mere personal differences and misunderstandings. It is also
incurable as shown by the fact that Petitioner gave him plenty of chances to
change his ways but which did not happen;
52. Furthermore, such incapacity is relevant to the assumption of
marriage obligations. Respondent did not merely have mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts, and mild character peculiarities, his
incapacity is constant as buttressed by the fact of abandonment of his family
and his marital and filial obligations;
53. The essential marital obligations embraced by Articles 68 to 71
of the Family Code as regards husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221

and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children have clearly
been neglected by Respondent;
54. Art. 68 of the Family Code provides that the husband and wife
are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
render mutual help and support. Respondent has failed to comply on this
55. Art. 69 of the same Code provides that the husband and wife
shall fix the family domicile. In this case, Respondent left the family
domicile and decided to live with another woman, at the expense of his
familys solidarity;
56. Art. 70 further provides that the spouses are jointly responsible
for the support of the family. The expenses for such support and other
conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the
absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separate properties.
Respondent has long neglected his obligation to provide support for his
family or even just to help Petitioner in the familys expenses;
57. Lastly, Art. 71 mandates that the management of the household
shall be the right and the duty of both spouses. It is clear from the foregoing
that the management of the household is not merely a right but a DUTY
which needs to be fulfilled not only by the wife, but also by the husband;
58. Respondent could have supported his family even while he was
living with his other woman had he chosen to do so, but he did not;
59. Respondents constant cheating, even when Petitioner found
out, is like scoffing at the institution and sacredness of marriage, which is
psychologically unsound;
60. Petitioner has already secured the professional help of a
licensed Psychiatrist to conduct a Psychiatric evaluation on her and
Respondent. The result will be submitted to this Honorable Court as soon as
it is available;
61. Petitioner has no other relief but to come to this Honorable
Court. She is filing this petition to declare her marriage a nullity. Respondent
showed no concern for his obligations towards her and their family in
violation of Art. 68 -71 of the Family Code. Petitioner is also filing this case
under Art. 36 of the same Code as the Respondent manifested apparent
personality disorder and psychological dysfunction, i.e., his lack of effective
sense of rational judgment and responsibility.

62. In the course of the marriage, the parties did not acquire any
real property.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court, after notice and hearing, to render judgment
in favor of the Petitioner against the Respondent, as follows:
a. Declaring the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent a nullity
on the ground of psychological incapacity of either or both Petitioner
and Respondent;
b. Allowing Petitioner to revert to the use of her maiden name; and
c. Disqualifying Respondent from inheriting any and all benefits or
privileges that Petitioner may be entitled under the law upon filing of
this Petition and in the future.
Other relief and remedies deemed just, proper and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
Most respectfully submitted this ____________ at the City of
Bacolod, Philippines.
Counsel for Petitioner
ROLL NO. 59880
PTR No. 5451419; 01-08-14
IBP OR No. 929398; 01-08-14
MCLE COMP. IV-0023147; 03-03-14
Room 4, 2nd Floor Midtown Arcade
Rosario Cor. Araneta Sts.
Bacolod City (6100)
Copy Furnished:
Estancia Subdivision
6100 Bacolod City
RR No: _____________
Date: ______________


3rd Floor, Hall of Justice
6100 Bacolod City
Received by: _____________
Date: ___________________


134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
RR No.: _________
Date: ___________

Copy of the foregoing Verified Petition was furnished to the Office of the
Solicitor General and the address of Respondent through registered mail only and not by
personal service by reason of lack of personnel to effect personal form of service in the
address of Respondent and the prohibitive distance between Bacolod and the City of
Republic of the Philippines - - - -)
City of Bacolod- - - - - - - - - - - )Sc.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
I, MARIA M. SANTOS, of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and a resident of
Lot 1, Block 51, San Dionisio, Bacolod City, after having been sworn to in accordance
with law, do hereby depose and say that:

I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled Verified Petition;

I have caused the above-entitled Verified Petition to be
prepared and have read and know the contents thereof;
The allegations therein are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge and based on authentic records;
I further attest that I have not commenced any petition for
the same cause of action before any tribunal or agency; that to the best of
my knowledge, no such action for any proceeding is pending before the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that if
there is such action or proceeding that have been filed or is pending before
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to report that fact within (5) days therefrom, to the court or
agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated
herein has been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand this ___________ in
Bacolod City, Philippines.
SSS No. 07-3036129-7
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me on the date and in the place
abovementioned, Affiant personally appeared and showed her above-described
identification data card.
Witness my hand and seal.
Doc. No. __;
Page No. __;

Book No. __;

Series of 2014.