Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ANGELINA JOLIE-PITT
Petitioner,
BRAD PITT
Respondent.
X-------------------------X
PETITION
1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of Cor. Malvar and
Gen. Lim St., Poblacion, Kiblawan, Davao del Sur while respondent is
likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of Way to Tiguman
St., Tres de Mayo, Digos City, where he may be served with summons,
orders and other legal processes of this Honorable Court;
2. Petitioner and respondent are wife and husband, having been legally
married on July 24, 2008 at Manila Cathedral, in Intramuros, Manila City
after a trip to the Manila, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto
attached as Annex A;
3. Three children were born in wedlock, Chelsea J. Pitt., aged 8 years old,
Beatrice J. Pitt, 6 years old and William J. Pitt, 4 years old a copy of their
Certificates of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annexes B, C and D;
5. Husband and wife met during a mass where the two immediately fell in
love;
6. The two were then inseparable as they spent their company happily in each
others arms but fissures were already present at this stage of their
relationship which foreshadowed their relationships end;
7. Prior to their marriage, Petitioner was informed through her friends that
her husband was a philanderer, irresponsible in work and associated with
men of disreputable character;
8. While Petitioner was still a law student, Brad would show utter disregard
for her future wifes welfare when he many times he would leave her alone
and vulnerable while waiting for a vehicle in the late hours of the night;
9. Despite the many warning signs that her husband was not capable of living
a domestic life, she continued with her relationship and decided to get
married to the man he loved;
10. The two decided to get married on 2008 just before she took the Bar
Examinations where she subsequently passed as a lawyer;
11. After one year their marriage gave birth to their first daughter Chelsie and
two years later to Beatrice;
12. During their marriage, Respondent was an absentee husband and negligent
father to their children who despite acquiring a well-paying job as the
Sheriff of Regional Trial Court 18, could not provide for their childrens
allowance, pay for the houses mortgage or even provide food to the table;
13. While Petitioner was busy at her law firm and building businesses in
Manila and Davao City, Respondent would veer away from the
responsibilities for their household: he failed to provide support to their
children, always avoided housework and would have drinking bouts that
lasted until 2AM;
14. This sad state of affairs Respondent tolerated out of her love of her husband
and she continued to pour her frustrations into her work;
15. Rumors then circulated that her husband was having secret affairs with
dozens of women and was having a long-term affair with a married
woman;
17. The scandalous discovery was revealed to respondent from her friends after
the two illicit lovers were playing with their lovechild in Rizal Park, Digos
City;
18. The couple had a heated exchange afterwards that night where Brad
revealed that since her wife was too busy as a lawyer and building an
Italian Restaurant in Davao, she no longer had any time for their
relationship;
19. Angelina would then retort that as the husband he should be working and
taking care of the children rather than be bruised by her elevated social
status and income;
20. After many years, her husbands treatment toward her deteriorated as his
drunkenness got worse and the two drifted apart more and more;
21. Petitioner discovered in 2015 that her husband fathered another second
daughter with her mistress;
22. Feeling spited and disregarded, petitioner decided with finality to end her
relationship with her husband as the second child was no longer just an
accident but was intentional;
23. To date, they have gone separate ways and the wife is now happily living
in Kiblawan with a new found boyfriend and there is no hope for
reconciliation.
24. Petitioner, convinced of the futility of her efforts, decided that she deserves
to start life anew with feelings of hope for a brighter future since there is
obviously no hope that respondent can cope up with her obligations as
husband;
27. Said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable and
existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its existence;
28. Petitioner and respondent have acquired a mansion in Forbes Park, two
houses in Kiblawan and Digos City, Php 25 million in the bank and an
Italian Restaurant in Davao City while their marriage subsisted.
PRAYER
VERIFICATION
02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of
my own personal knowledge;
ANGELINA JOLIE
Affiant
BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,
GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X
PETITION
01. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;
02.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;
03.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;
05. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.
06. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.
07. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.
08. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.
09. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.
10. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.
11. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.
Page 03.
12. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.
13.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.
14. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.
Page 04.
18.That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable
and existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its
existence;
19.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.
PRAYER
VERIFICATION
01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;
02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;
Page 05.
03. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum shopping, I
hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; b) to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal
or agency; c) If I should learned that similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before such tribunals or bodies, I shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court of agency where the original pleading and sworn certification
have been filed.
BENJO C. BERNARDO
Affiant
BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,
GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X
PETITION
20. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;
21.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;
22.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;
Page 02.
24. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.
25. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.
26. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.
27. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.
28. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.
29. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.
30. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.
Page 03.
31. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.
32.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.
33. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.
Page 04.
38.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.
PRAYER
VERIFICATION
01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;
02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;
Page 05.
BENJO C. BERNARDO
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of May 2009,
affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.
BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,
GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X
PETITION
39. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;
40.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;
41.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;
Page 02.
43. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.
44. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.
45. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.
46. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.
47. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.
48. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.
49. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.
Page 03.
50. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.
51.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.
52. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.
Page 04.
57.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.
PRAYER
VERIFICATION
01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;
02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;
Page 05.
BENJO C. BERNARDO
Affiant
BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,
GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X
PETITION
58. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;
59.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;
60.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;
Page 02.
62. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.
63. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.
64. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.
65. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.
66. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.
67. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.
68. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.
Page 03.
69. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.
70.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.
71. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.
76.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.
PRAYER
VERIFICATION
01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;
02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;
Page 05.
BENJO C. BERNARDO
Affiant
BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,
GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X
PETITION
77. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;
78.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;
79.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;
Page 02.
81. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.
82. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.
83. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.
84. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.
85. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.
86. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.
87. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.
Page 03.
88. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.
89.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.
90. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.
Page 04.
95.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.
PRAYER
VERIFICATION
01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;
02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;
Page 05.
Affiant