REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MAKATI CITY
Branch 54

ISHA MARTINERO
Petitioner,

Civil Case No. 18-0721

-versus-
For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage under Art. 36 of the
Family Code

FELIPE “BABE” ERO

Respondent.
x---------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states, that:

I. PARTIES

Petitioner, Isha Martinero, is of legal age, Filipino, married to the

respondent and a resident of 1234 Apollo St Bel-Air Makati City. She
is duly represented by Atty. Anna Carmela G. Virtucio with office
address at Valero Tower Suite 302-A, Salcedo Village Makati City
where the complainant may be served with summons, notices, orders,
decision, and other legal processes of this Honorable Court.

Respondent, Felipe “BABE” Ero, is of legal age, Filipino, married

to the petitioner, with residence at Barangay Poblacion, Alaminos

1
Laguna and may be served with processes and orders of this
Honorable Court at the said address.

II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Petitioner alleges that the respondent is psychologically

incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, already
then existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage and even
prior to said celebration of the marriage and such incapacity became
more manifest only after the celebration of said marriage.

2. The relationship between petitioner and respondent began after

meeting each other during the class reunion of their respective siblings
who were former classmates and good friends in lawschool.

3. After a few months of being together, petitioner later found out

that respondent maintained his relationship with his former girlfriend
Ana which then led to their breakup. But eventually they got back
together through the intervention of their families.

4. Subsequently, sometime in July 2012, petitioner found out that

she was pregnant.

5. As a result of said pregnancy, respondent agreed to marry

petitioner despite the fact that the latter was not yet ready for such
commitment.

6. At the start of their marriage, petitioner thought that respondent

have really matured and changed for the better and would stop with
his philandering behavior. Petitioner was however wrong. The
philandering behavior of the respondent persisted as he went back to
his philandering ways as he would be seen by their relatives and
common friends like Bianca Celeste and Dior Velasquez with different
women in bars and hotels. Petitioner also saw text messages and lewd
photos sent by respondent’s former girlfriend Ana. But what really
draw the line is that event that occurred sometime in June 2016 when
petitioner decided to surprise respondent after a business trip. Upon
coming home, petitioner saw respondent in a compromising act with
another woman. This eventually led to petitioner leaving the conjugal
dwelling with their minor daughter Annie and decided to stay with
her sister, Irene Martinero.

2
7. Subsequent to the said event, the petitioner and the respondent
separated in fact, and petitioner cut all communication with the
respondent. As far as she knows, the respondent never attempted to
contact her or even attempted to visit and support their child.

III. POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

BETWEEN THE PARTIES

Petitioner is not amenable to any amicable settlement with the

Respondent as regards the present petition, due to irreconcilable
differences which make it impossible to achieve a harmonious home
life. Thus, in the interest of her personal safety and the safety of their
child, petitioner manifests that she will not agree to any settlement
which will result in the withdrawal of the petitioner.

Petitioner, however, is amenable to compromise as to ancillary matters

such as matters of support and alimony, as may be allowed by this
most Honorable Court.

IV. ADMISSIONS & STIPULATIONS

Other than those stated in the petition, the Petitioner has other
matters to admit at the moment. However, we would like to propose
the following stipulations:

1. That the parties entered into a contract of permanent union

of marriage on 31 July 2012:

2. That a child was born to them by the name of Annie on

January 29, 2013.

3. That the parties are no longer living together and have

been separated in fact.

3
 4. That respondent is suffering from Narcissistic Personality
Disorder that was rooted from his lack of parental care
during his childhood, that such illness is diagnosed to be
grave, serious and incurable and that the illness existed
before, at the time of the marriage and during their
marriage.

V. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE TRIED/RESOLVED

1. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS

PSYCOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO CONTRACT
THE MARRIAGE
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO
SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIMS FOR NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF PSYCOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY.

VI. DOCUMENTS OR EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED

Petitioner intends to present the following documentary evidence to,

wit:

1. Certificate of Marriage issued by the NSO – EXHIBIT “A”

PURPOSE: To prove the existence of marriage between petitioner
and the respondent.

2. Certificate of Live birth issued by the NSO – “EXHIBIT B”

PURPOSE: To prove that a child was indeed born to petitioner and
respondent whom they named as Annie.

3. Text messages between respondent and his former girlfriend

“Ana” – EXHIBIT “C”
PURPOSE: To prove that respondent is committing infidelity against
petitioner.

4. Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Domingo Reyes IV – EXHIBIT “D”

4
PURPOSE: To establish the expertise of Dr. Domingo Reyes IV, the
specialist consulted by herein petitioner and his expert knowledge on
matters of psychology.

5. Psychological Report of Dr. Domingo Reyes IV as regards

Respondent – EXHBIT “E”
PURPOSE: To establish and prove that the Respondent is clinically
found to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
requisites of marriage and is suffering from Narcissistic Personality
Disorder which is found to be grave, serious & incurable and that said
illness existed before, at the time of and during their marriage.

VII. NUMBER AND NAME OF WITNESSES AND THE

SUBSTANCE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE TESTIMONIES:

Petitioner intends to present six (6) witnesses, to wit:

1. Isha Martinero, petitioner

PURPOSE: To establish and prove the allegations found in the petition.

2. Dr. Domingo Reyes IV, clinical psychologist

PURPOSE: To establish, prove, and corroborate the allegations of the
petitioner as regards the psychological incapacity of the respondent
with expert knowledge.

3. Irene Martinero, sister of petitioner

PURPOSE: To testify on the behavior of respondent before marriage
and during their union.

4. Manong Pepe, former household help

PURPOSE: To prove that respondent has been bringing home and
sleeping with different girls while petitioner is away for business trips

5. Bianca Celeste & Dior Velasquez, common friends of both

petitioner and respondent
PURPOSE: To corroborate to the testimony of petitioner and prove the
philandering ways of respondent during their marriage.

5
 VIII. DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

Considering the relatively simple issues presented, petitioner

does not intend to avail of the modes of discovery at this time. But
subject however to a concrete and reasonable request for the modes of
discovery from respondent, petitioner reserves the right to resort to
discovery before trial.

IX. APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRIDENCE

This instant petition is founded on the following provisions of

the Family Code of the Philippines, to wit: (Art 1, Art 36, Art 68, and
Art 72)

X. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

Petitioner reserves the right to submit the Judicial Affidavits of

her intended witnesses, within the period allowed by the rules, after
stipulations are made and issues are threshed out.

XI. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES

Petitioner moves that the trial dates be agreed upon by the

parties and their respective counsels during the pre-trial conference in
order to reconcile the same with the calendar of this Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the foregoing Pre – Trial Brief
be duly noted and be made part of the records of the case.

Makati City City, 22nd day of October 2018

6
 Atty. ANNA CARMELA G. VIRTUCIO
Counsel for Petitioner
Valero Tower Suite 302-A
Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City
IBP No. 764814- 01-07-17Makati City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/17/ Makati
Roll of Attorneys No. 33476
MCLE Compliance 0009328- 03/27/18

Atty. IVY EDODOLLON

Counsel for Petitioner
Valero Tower Suite 302-B
Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City
IBP No. 985714- 01-07-17Makati City
PTR No. 6798664 /01/14/17/ Makati
Roll of Attorneys No. 89976
MCLE Compliance 0694528- 03/27/18

COPY FURNISHED:

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City, 1229

Makati Clerk of Court

10th Floor, New Makati City Hall
Dr. Jose P. Rizal Avenue
Makati City