Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 98

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13
-versus- FOR: DECLARATION
OF NULLITYOF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

PETITION

Petitioner, in the above-entitled case, thru the undersigned counsel


and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges that:

1. Petitioner FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR is of legal age,


Filipino Citizen, married to herein respondent RICHARD C.
GASPAR, and a resident of Brgy. 9-Sta. Angela, Laoag City,
Ilocos Norte, where she has been residing for more than six (6)
months prior to the filing of this petition, and where she may be
served with summons, notices, orders and other processes of
this Honorable Court;

2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to


petitioner. He may be served with summons, notices, orders
and other processes of this Honorable Court at his last known
address at Brgy. 5 San Ramon, Vintar, Ilocos Norte,
Philippines;

3. Petitioner and respondent tied the marital knot on March 28,


2009 at the Roman Catholic Parish of San Nicolas de
Tolentino, Vintar, Ilocos Norte, copy of their Marriage Certificate
is hereby attached as Annex “A”;

4. Petitioner and respondent got to know each other sometime in


June 2002 when they were still Criminology students. After a
while of being classmates, respondent endeared himself to the
petitioner by being a gentleman, thoughtful and sweet.
Petitioner also admired respondent’s intelligence as well as his
gift for words;

5. Eventually, the respondent started to show his admiration


towards petitioner by formally courting the petitioner sometime
in November 2002. Since the petitioner and respondent had a
positive mutual feelings for each other, she accepted his love a
month later;

6. Sex became a part of their relationship until the petitioner was


impregnated by the respondent in 2003. Because of what
happened, they decided to live together as husband and wife
under a common law partnership with the consent of their
parents;

7. Petitioner and respondent had two children out of wedlock.


Their first child, Rosemarie G. Gaspar was born on March 15,
2004 while their second child Rhea G. Gaspar was born on
May 5, 2005, copies of their Certificates of Live Birth are hereto
attached as Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively;

8. The petitioner and respondent continued their studies with the


help of their parents. Respondent graduated in 2005 and
passed his board examination in Criminology. Same is true with
the petitioner. The respondent was hired as a policeman. His
first assignment was at the National Capital Region;

9. Petitioner and respondent were supposed to get married during


those times, but the petitioner began to have second thoughts
in marrying her live-in partner because she observed
unpleasant traits of the respondent. They quarrelled every day
because of misunderstandings. Respondent turned out to be
grossly irresponsible as the head of the family. Instead of
helping his wife, he preferred to stay out with his friends to have
good time at almost every night and more often than not comes
home early in the morning the following day. His unmindful
ways persisted even with the presence of their two kids so
much so that fighting between the petitioner and respondent
became a daily routine. The petitioner recounted that most of
their arguments were triggered by his irresponsibility and
neglectful attitude. She also noticed that her husband was
never closed to his children because he never made an effort in
taking care of them;
10. Sometime in 2007, she started to notice that her husband
was acting differently. Unlike before, he had turned cold and
indifferent towards her;

11. One time, the respondent arrived dead drunk, his cellular
phone’s battery was drained. Petitioner charged the phone and
after browsing its messages, she discovered text messages
from a woman telling the respondent how thankful she was for
dropping by. The petitioner got her number and started to set
up a date with that woman at Jollibee the following morning.
The petitioner also invited the respondent;

12. The following day, the three met in Jollibee and petitioner
confirmed that the respondent had a nocturnal relationship with
the other woman. The woman admitted that they have an affair.
The respondent was speechless and could not say a word. The
petitioner opted to address their problem calmly for she was
already working as a police officer at that time. She opted to
face her problems in silence. However, the respondent never
showed any remorse of what he did. His infidelity persisted and
he neglected his duties as a husband. Sex became infrequent
afterwards;

13. In the year 2009, the respondent suddenly made a


wedding proposal to the petitioner. For her, she wanted to give
him a second chance hoping that he will change into a better
man in the future. She accepted his proposal and their wedding
was set on March 28, 2009 and it was attended by close friends
and relatives. After the ceremony, the spouses went back to
their respective assignments as police officers;

14. In 2011, respondent was assigned in Ilocos Norte while


the petitioner was stationed in Antipolo, Rizal. He met an
accident and killed two pedestrians. Fortunately, he was able to
settle the case amicably with the victim’s family. When he went
to Manila to pick up the settlement money from his wife, he
arrived home drunk. He asked the petitioner that if ever he had
another woman, would she forgive him. Before the petitioner
would even answer him, he dozed off and slept;
15. On February 14, 2012, one of petitioner’s friends from
Ilocos Norte Marielle Calumag, called her asking her if she
were in town. Marielle claimed that she saw petitioner’s
husband at a food chain, but she was not sure if it was the
petitioner that she saw for the girl seemed smaller than her.
The petitioner immediately confronted the respondent, but he
told her that the girl he was with at that time was only a friend of
his. She was not convinced with his explanations so she took a
vacation and went home to his husband to clarify things;

16. When she confronted him about the girl named Cherry,
who was being linked to him since he was assigned in Ilocos
Norte, respondent told her that she is a councilor of Vintar,
Ilocos Norte and he used to escort her as a security official;

17. They tried to patch things up but the respondent obviously


lost his interest to his wife by his cold treatment. He often went
out with his friends instead of spending time with his family. The
petitioner tried to move on, but she continued to hear
unpleasant information against her husband. His husband’s
neglect of his marital obligations even became worse. He
became verbally abusive towards her to a point of telling her
that if only her parents were alive, he will return her to them.
Respondent never changed his attitude. He remained indulgent
to his infidelity;

18. His gross irresponsibility became a source of their fights


and quarrels. He continued to have illicit relationships to
different women. He never showed any drive to fulfil his
obligations as a husband and father;

19. The worst thing that petitioner discovered was the


respondent having an affair with married woman with children.
They also have a joint account in a social network and she was
able to read their secrets. For her it was a signal that the
respondent is no longer interested in their marriage. Petitioner
was skin and bone after grieving from what she saw until she
decided to work in Ilocos Norte in 2012. Sometime in 2013,
respondent finally deserted his family and eloped with Cherry;

20. Petitioner never felt loved and never had any peace of
mind since they were married. She has always been
emotionally tormented on how her husband acted causing her
sleepless nights. After those hurtful events in her marital life,
petitioner came into a decision that she has to end her suffering
from her doomed marriage. She experienced emotional torment
throughout her marriage and believes that her marriage is
already beyond repair;

21. However, the marriage between petitioner and


respondent is void from the beginning for the reason that at the
time petitioner and respondent contracted marriage, respondent
was psychologically incapacitated to perform the marital
obligations of marriage and such incapacity became manifest
only after the celebration of their marriage;

22. Petitioner and respondent are obliged under the law to


observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual
help and support, materially, socially and spiritually, but these
are essential obligations of marriage which the respondent
failed to observe and is incapable of performing of fulfilling:

a. He is an avid partygoer, his friends and colleagues were


his priority rather than his wife or his family life and
children;

b. He is disloyal, disrespectful and notoriously unfaithful to


his spouse;

c. He is grossly irresponsible and habitually dishonest;

d. He lacked remorse. Even if petitioner tried her best to


bear respondent’s shortcomings as a husband, he has
not done any move to change his ways or to ask for an
apology for his misdeeds;

23. The foregoing acts show that respondent was remiss in


the performance of his marital obligations to render mutual help
and support and to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity;

24. Respondent’s psychological incapacity to perform the


essential marital obligations appears to be grave, incurable and
deeply-rooted as will be proven by a psychologist in the course
of the proceedings;
25. Petitioner was constrained to file this action to free herself
from the inequity of being bound by a marriage to a man who
only cares for himself and has totally neglected his marital
obligations to his wife;

26. Petitioner and respondent have no properties acquired


during their marriage that may be subject of dissolution;

27. A copy of this petition shall be furnished to the Office of


the Solicitor General at 134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village,
Makati City, and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Marcos
Hall of Justice, Laoag City within five (5) days from filing and to
file proof of service within the same period of service within the
same period, pursuant to Sec. 5(4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court


that after due notice and hearing, the marriage between petitioner
and respondent be declared null and void in accordance with Article
36 of the Family Code of the Philippines and Executive Order No.
209, as amended by Executive Order No.227.

Petitioner also prays for such other reliefs as may be deem just
and equitable under the foregoing premises.

Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. June 18, 2014.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Counsel of the Petitioner
Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26,2012

Address: CALMA Law Office, Room 205, 888 Realty Bldg.


Gen. Luna, Cor. Balintawak Sts., Laoag City
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, of legal age, married, Filipino


and a resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte,
Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby
depose and state that:

I am the petitioner in the foregoing Petition;

I have caused the preparation of this Petitioner;

The content hereof are true to the best of my knowledge


and/or based on authentic documents;

I certify that no case of the same nature and cause of action or


issue was filed before any tribunal, regular court,
administrative, or quasi-judicial body that has jurisdiction
hereof, and if known, shall notify this court within 5 days upon
notice.

Done this June 18, 2014, Laoag City, Philippines.

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR


Affiant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)


CITY OF LAOAG )s.s.

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this June 18, 2014 at


Laoag City, Philippines, FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, exhibiting to
me her PRC ID No. 0030649 as Criminologist, valid until 4/18/2017.

WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL on the date, year and


place above-mentioned.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Notary Public
Until December 31, 2014
Roll No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0006479, June 26, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF LAOAG )s.s.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, SHELLAH B. REYES, of legal age, single, Filipino citizen


and a resident of Brgy. 23, Sarrat, IlocosNorte, Philippines, after
having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby voluntarily
depose and state that:

I am the secretary of ATTY. ROWELL CALMA;

On 20 June 2014, I served a copy of the following petition:

PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF


MARRIAGE, FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR versus
RICHARD C. GASPAR, Civil Case No. 0143-13 to be filed with
the Regional Trial Court, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Branch 11,
pursuant to Section 3, 4, 5, and 10, Rules of Court as of
follows:

BY REGISTERED MAIL WITH RETURN CARD TO:

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village
Makati City, Philippines

By depositing one (1) copy of the Petition for Declaration of


Nullity of Marriage on 20 June 2014, at Laoag City Post Office as
evidenced by the Registry Receipt Number 1123 hereto attached
and/or indicated after the name of the addressee and with
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after
ten (10) days if undelivered.

Laoag City, Philippines. 20 June 2014.

SHEILA B. REYES
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20 June 2014
at Laoag City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me her Postal ID No.
2660368, valid until January 2016 as competent proof of her identity.

Doc. No.: ___ ATTY. LIZ R. DOMINGO


Page No.: ___ Notary Public
Book No.: ___ Until December 31, 2014
Series of: ___ Roll No.1476-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123986-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7632451-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0006659, June 26, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR:DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

A complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage was filed by


the plaintiff FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR. However, before this
court could act on the complaint by the issuance of summons to
herein defendant, plaintiff is hereby directed to show proof of her
residence in Brgy. 9-Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, as stated
in the complaint, within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Given in chambers this 23rd day of July 2014 at Laoag City,


IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, Laoag City, IlocosNorte

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner, CIVIL CASE No. 2460-19

-vs- FOR: DECLARATION OF


NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
RICHARD S. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------x

MANIFESTATION AND COMPLIANCE

PETITIONER, in the above-captioned case, through counsel and


unto this Most Honorable Court respectfully manifests:

That on July 10, 2014, the petitioner, thru counsel, received a copy
of the Order of the Most Honorable Court dated July 3, 2014 directing her
to show proof of her residence within five (5) days from receipt.

In compliance with the Order of the Honorable Court, we respectfully


submit the attached Affidavit as proof of petitioner’s residence in Brgy. 9-
Sta. ngela,Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

WHEREFORE, above premises considered, it is respectfully prayed


that the foregoing Manifestation and Compliance be noted for the kind
consideration of the Honorable Court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines. 14 July 2014.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Counsel of the Petitioner
Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012
The Clerk of the Court
RTC Branch 11
Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing Manifestation and Compliance


immediately upon receipt hereof for the consideration and approval of
the Most Honorable Court.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished: By personal service

APP KENNETH DOMINGO


Provincial Prosecutor’s Office
Laoag City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF LAOAG )s.s

AFFIDAVIT

I, ROSE MADARANG, of legal age, single, Filipino citizen


and resident of Brgy.9-Sta. Angela Laoag City, IlocosNorte,
Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
do hereby voluntarily depose and state that:

I am a bonafide resident of Brgy.9-Sta. Angela Laoag City,


IlocosNorte, Philippines;

That I have been a resident of the said place since 1957 and
I own the house where I reside;

That I personally know FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


policewoman assigned at Bacarra, IlocosNorte;

That since November 2013, FRANCES GUERRERO


GASPAR has been renting one of the rooms at my house up to
present;

That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the


foregoing facts and for whatever legal purpose it may serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 14th


day of July 2014 at Laoag City, Philippines.

ROSE MADARANG
Affiant
PRC ID No.000111721
Valid Until: 02 Oct
2015
SUBSCRIBEDAND SWORN to before me this 14th day of July
2014 at Laoag City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me the foregoing
government issued ID indicated below her name and signature as
competent proof of her true identity.

Doc. No. : __ ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Page No.: __ Notary Public
Book No.: __ Until December 31, 2014
Series of ___ Roll No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0006479, June 26, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

Finding the Manifestation/Compliance of petitioner to be not


substantiated with sufficient proof of her residency at Barangay 9-
Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, the instant petition is hereby
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

Given in chambers this 22nd day of July 2014, Laoag City,


IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Most


Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the
Order dated July 22, 2014 and alleges that:

On July 24, 2014 the undersigned counsel received the Order


issued by the Honorable Court dismissing the above case for lack of
jurisdiction due to insufficiency of proof of petitioner’s residency at
Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte;

Petitioner is hereby submitting additional proof of her


residency with the said barangay six (6) months prior to the filing of
this petition: A CERTIFICATION from the Punong Barangay of Brgy.
9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte and a CONTRACT OF
LEASE of her residency in the said barangay, copies of said
certification and contract of lease are hereto attached as Annex “A”
and Annex “B”, respectively;

On bended knees, the undersigned pleads for the


understanding of the Most Honorable Court to reconsider its decision
dated July 22, 2014 and continue to take cognizance of the above
case;
This motion for reconsideration is not meant to delay the
resolution of the above-titled case.
ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, with bended knees and
with all humility, the undersigned respectfully reiterates his prayer that
the Most Honorable Court reconsiders the Order dismissing this case
for lack of jurisdiction and continue to take cognizance of the above
case.

Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines, August 8, 2014.

By: ROWELL CALMA


Counsel for Petitioner
Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

NOTICE

The Clerk of Court


RTC Branch 11
Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration


immediately upon receipt hereof for the consideration and approval of
the Most Honorable Court.

Kindly set the hearing of the same on August 14, 2014 at 8:30
o’clock in the morning.

Thank you.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished: by personal service

APP KENNETH DOMINGO


Provincial Prosecutor’s Office
Laoag City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
BARANGAY STA. ANGELA
City of Laoag
Province of IlocosNorte
OFFICE OF THE BARANGAY CHAIRMAN

CERTIFICATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


married and a resident of Barangay 9-Sta. Angela, Laoag City,
IlocosNorte, Philippines is personally known to me.

This is to further certify that she resided at this Barangay


since November 2013.

This certification is issued upon the request of the above-


named individual for whatever legal purpose/intent it may lawfully
serve.

Issued this 7th day of August 2014 at Barangay Sta. Angela,


Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines.

BENJAMIN TORRES
Punong Barangay
CONTRACT OF LEASE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THIS PRESENTS

This contract entered into by and between:

ROSE MADARANG, of legal age, single, Filipino and a


resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela,Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines,
and hereinafter known as LESSOR;

and;

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, of legal age, married,


Filipino citizen and a resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City,
IlocosNorte, Philippines and hereinafter known as LESSEE;

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, are the LESSOR is the lawful owner of a


residential building located at Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, laoag City,
IlocosNorte, Philippines;

WHEREAS theLESSORis offering the said residetential


building for lease;

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the amount of ONE


THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS per month, the LESSOR
hereby leases unto the said LESSEE, a room of said building subject
to the following terms and conditions;

1. That the term of this lease shall be TWO (2) years of


commencing on the 28th day of November, 2013, to 31st day of
December, 2015 renewable for another period of TWO (2)
years upon the mutual agreement of both parties;

2. That the LESSEE agrees to pay the LESSOR a monthly rental


of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS(Php 1,500.00)
payable every 30th day of the month and a penalty of 2% for
late payments;

3. That the LESSE has a deposit amounting to THREE


THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3,000.00) representing one month
advance and one month deposit, non-refundable but applicable
for the last two months of stay of the LESSEE;
4. That any improvement made by the LESSEE shall have prior
consent of the LESSOR without benefit of reimbursement of
expenses;
5. That the LESSOR shall not be responsible for damages or loss
of properties of the LESSEE in the leased premises that may
be caused by fire, force major and theft or burglaries and the
like;

6. That the LESSEE shall be his own expense, maintain the


leased premises in good, clean and sanitary condition and is
prohibited from storing any flammable or identical hazardous
materials in the leased premises;

7. That the LESSEE is not allowed to sub-lease the premises or


any portion thereof without the consent of the LESSOR;

8. That the LESSEE shall be liable for damages for the leased
premises incurred through his/her faults, his/her workers or
visitors expecting through ordinary wear and tear, which shall
be borne by the LESSOR;

9. That the LESSOR can inspect the leased anytime;

10. That the parties are enjoined to strictly comply with the
above terms and conditions of this contract;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this


November 28, 2013 at Laoag City, Philippines.

ROSE MADARANG FRANCES G. GASPAR


Lessor Lessee
TIN: 345-165-987 TIN: 653-876-098

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

___________________ ___________________
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF LAOAG ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, this November 28, 2013 in the City of Laoag,


province of IlocosNorte, Philippines, personality appeared ROSE
MADARANG and FRANCES GUERRERO GASPARwith their
respective proof of identification indicated below their names and
signature, known to me to be same persons who executed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is
their free and voluntary act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and


affixed my notarial seal the day, year and place above written.

Doc. No.: ___ ATTY. LIZ R. DOMINGO


Page No.: ___ Notary Public
Book No.: ___ Until December 31, 2014
Series of: ___ Roll No.1476-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123986-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7632451-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0006659, June 26, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13
-versus- FOR: DECLARATION
OF NULLITYOF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

When this case was called for hearing on the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by plaintiff thru counsel, Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Kenneth Domingo appeared for the government while
Atty. Rowell Calma for the plaintiff.

Counsel manifested that he is submitting the motion for


reconsideration without further arguments.

The motion is submitted for resolution.

SO ORDERED.

Given in open court this 14th day of August 2014 at Laoag City,
IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City, Metro Manila
Tel. Nos. 8186301-89

August 5, 2014

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor


Laoag City, IlocosNorte

RE: Nullity of Marriage


Civil Case No. 2460-19
RTC-Br. 11, Laoag City, IlocosNorte
FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR vs.
RICHARD C. GASPAR
x------------------------------------------------x

Sir:
Pursuant to section 35(7), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of the 1987, you are hereby deputized to assist
the Solicitor General in the above-titled case.

Please be informed that your authority is subject to the


reservation contained in the Notice of Appearance filed by the
Solicitor General in this case the only notices of orders, resolution
and decisions served on him will bind the Government, the entity,
agency and/or official representative.

Upon promulgation of judgement, report and


recommendation on the merits of the case should be submitted to this
office for evaluation.

Very truly yours,

ISRAEL DELA CRUZ


Solicitor General
RENER CAFIRMA
Senior State Solicitor

KIDD CASTRO
State Solicitor

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITYOF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

The Clerk of Court


RTC-Br.11, Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please enter the appearance of the Solicitor General as


counsel for the Republic of the Philippines in the above-entitled case
and cause all notices of hearings, orders, resolutions, decisions and
other process to be served upon him at the office of the Solicitor
General, 134 Amorsolo Street, Makati City.

The Provincial Prosecutor in Laoag City, IlocosNorte has been


authorized to appear in this case and, therefore, should also be
furnished notices of hearings, orders, resolutions, decisions and
processes. However, as the Solicitor General retains supervision and
control of the representation in this case and has to approve
withdrawal of the case, only notices of orders, resolutions, and
decisions served on him will bind the party represented.

Adverse parties are likewise requested to furnish both the


Solicitor General and the Prosecutor with copies of their pleadings
and motions.

Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13, New Rules Civil Procedure,


the foregoing Notice of Appearance is being filed and served by
registered mail, personal filing and service not being practical due to
distance.
City of Makati for Laoag City, IlocosNorte, August 5, 2014.

ISRAEL DELA CRUZ


Solicitor General
Roll No. 25719
IBP Lifetime Membership No.
00037
MCLE Exemption No. III-0008523

RENER CAFIRMA
Senior State Solicitor
Roll of Attorneys No. 41169
IBP Lifetime No. 011303
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0009083, 11, 13-12

KIDD CASTRO
State Solicitor
Roll No. 54185
IBP Lifetime Member No. 08750
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0009081,11-13-12

Copy Furnished: by registered mail

Atty. Rowell Calma


Counsel for the Petitioner
Calma Law Office, Room 205, 888 realty Bldg.
Gen. Luna Cor. BalintawakSts., Laoag City

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor


Laoag City, IlocosNorte
EXPLANATION

(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 for the 1997 Rules of Civil


Procedure)

The foregoing Notice of Appearance is being filed and served


by registered mail, personal filing and service not being practicable
due to distance.

RENER CAFIRMA
Senior State Solicitor
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITYOF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

This treats of the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated


July 22, 2014 dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction as the proof
submitted by the petitioner of her residency is not sufficient. In her
motion, she submitted a Certification issued by the Punong Barangay
of Brgy. Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte to the effect that the
petitioner since November 2013 has been resident of said barangay.
She also submitted a Contract of Lease entered into by her and one
Rose Madarang involving a room of a residential building in Brgy.
Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilococ Norte.

In the interest of substantial justice and finding the documents


submitted as proof that she indeed is a resident of Brgy. Sta. Angela,
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Order
dated July 22, 2014 is hereby SET ASIDE.

Let summons be issued to the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Given in chambers this 19th day of August 2014 at Laoag City,


Ilocos Norte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITYOF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

SUMMONS

TO: RICHARD C. GASPAR


Brgy. San Ramon, Vintar
IlocosNorte

You are hereby required within fifteen (15) days after service of
this summons upon you, to file with this Court and serve on the
plaintiff your answer to the complaint, copy of which is hereto
attached, together with the annexes. You are reminded of the
provision in the IBP-OCA Memorandum on Policy Guidelines dated
March 12, 2002 to observe restraint in filing a motion to dismiss and
instead allege the grounds thereof as defences in the Answer. If you
fail to answer within the time fixed, the plaintiff will take judgement by
default and may be granted the relief applied for in the complaint.

WITNESS my hand under the seal of the Court, this 22nd day of
August 2014, Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

JONAS CU
Clerk of Court-IV
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITYOF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

Considering that the respondent in the above-entitled case


failed to submit his answer, the Provincial Prosecutor is hereby
directed to conduct investigation to determine whether or not
collusion exists.

The result of the investigation shall be submitted to this court


within thirty (30) days from receipt of this order.

SO ORDERED.

Given in chambers this 16th day of October 2014 at Laoag City,


ILocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERRO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITYOF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

MANIFESTATION

COMES NOW the undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor


in the above-entitled case, most respectfully manifest that after a
careful investigation conducted, the undersigned is of the honest
belief that there is no collusion that exist between the parties.

RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED.

Laoag City, IlocosNorte, November 6, 2014.

KENNETH DOMINGO
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
NOTICE

The Clerk of Court


RTC Br. 11
Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing Manifestation to the Honorable


Court immediately upon receipt hereof for its kind consideration and
approval.

KENNETH DOMINGO
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION OF


NULLITYOF MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

MOTION TO SET CASE FOR PRE-TRIAL

PETITIONER, thru the undersigned counsel, unto this


Honorable Court most especially states:

That on November 17, 2014, the undersigned received a copy


of the manifestation filed by the Provincial Prosecutor KENNETH
DOMINGO, stating that after a careful investigation conducted, he is
of the honest belief that there exists NO collusion between the
parties;

That considering further that the respondent in the above-


entitled case failed to submit his answer, it is respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that the instant case be set for PRELIMINARY
CONFERENCE/PRE-TRIAL, preferably on December 4, 2014 at 8:30
o’clock in the morning.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed to this


Honorable Court that the above-entitled case set for preliminary
conference/pre-trial on December 4, 2014 at 8:30 o’clock in the
morning.

Done this 17th day of November, 2014 at Laoag City,


IlocosNorte, Philippines.
ATTY. ROWELL CALMA
Counsel of the Petitioner
Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

The Clerk of Court


RTC-Branch 11, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing motion immediately upon receipt


hereof, for the consideration and approval of the Most Honorable
Court.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished: By Personal service

APP KENNETH DOMINGO


OIC Provincial Prosecutor
Marcos Hall of Justice, Laoag City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITYOF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

Acting on the Motion To Set Case For Pre-Trial filed by the


petitioner through counsel to the above-entitled case, the same is
hereby granted.

Let the Pre-Trial Conference be set on December 4, 2014 at


8:30 o’clock in the morning.

SO ORDERED.

Given in Chambers this 18th day of November 2014 at Laoag


City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITYOF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this


Honorable Court respectfully submits this Pre-trial brief, to wit:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by


the petitioner FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR against respondent
RICHARD C. GASPAR for their marriage is void from the beginning,
because the respondent, at the time of the celebration of her
marriage with the petitioner, was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with her essential marital obligations, and such incapacity
became manifest only after its solemnization.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Petitioner FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR is of legal age,


Filipino citizen, married to herein respondent RICHARD C.
GASPAR, and a resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City,
IlocosNorte, where she has been residing for more than six (6)
months prior to the filing of this petition, and where she may be
served with summons, notices, orders and other processes of
this Honorable Court;

2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to


petitioner. He may be served with summons, notices, orders
and other processes of this Honorable Court at his last known
address at Brgy. 5 San Ramon, Vintar, IlocosNorte, Philippines.

3. Petitioner and respondent tied the marital knot on March 28,


2009 at the Roman Catholic Parish of San Nicolas de
Tolentino, Vintar, IlocosNorte;

4. Petitioner and respondent got to know each other in 2002 when


they were still Criminology students. After a while of being
classmates, respondent endeared himself to the petitioner by
being a gentleman, thoughtful and sweet. Petitioner also
admired respondent’s intelligence as well as his gift for words;

5. Eventually, the respondent started to show his admiration


towards petitioner by formally courting the petitioner sometime
in November 2002. Since the petitioner and respondent had a
positive mutual feelings for each other, she accepted his love a
month later;

6. Sex became a part of their relationship until the petitioner was


impregnated by the respondent in 2003. Because of what
happened, they decided to live together as husband and wife
under a common law partnership with the consent of their
parents;

7. Petitioner and respondent had two children out of wedlock.


Their first child, Rosemarie Gaspar was born on March 15,
2004 while their second child Rhea Gaspar was born on May 5,
2005;

8. The petitioner and respondent continued their studies with the


help of their parents. Respondent graduated in 2005 and
passed the licensure examination in Criminology. Same is true
with the petitioner. The respondent was hired as a policeman.
His first assignment was at the National Capital Region;

9. Petitioner and respondent were supposed to be married during


those times, but the petitioner began to have second thoughts
in marrying her live-in partner because she observed
unpleasant traits of the respondent. Respondent turned out to
be grossly irresponsible as a head of the family. Instead of
helping his wife, he preferred to stay out with his friends to have
good time at almost every night and more often than not comes
home early in the morning the following day. His unmindful
ways persisted even with the presence of their two kids so
much that fighting between the petitioner and respondent
became a daily routine. The petitioner recounted that most of
their arguments were triggered by his irresponsibility and
neglectful attitude. She also noticed that her husband was
never close to his children, because he never made an effort in
taking care of them;

10. Sometime in 2007, she started to notice that her partner


was acting differently;

11. One time, the respondent arrived dead drunk, his cellular
phone’s battery was drained. Petitioner charged the phone and
after browsing its messages, she discovered a text message by
a woman telling the respondent how thankful she was for
dropping by. The petitioner got her number and started to set
up a date with that woman at Jollibee the following morning.
The petitioner also invited the respondent;

12. The following day, the three met in Jollibee and petitioner
confirmed that the respondent had a nocturnal relationship with
the other woman. The woman admitted that they have an affair.
The respondent was speechless and could not say a word. The
petitioner opted to address their problem calmly for she was
already working as a police officer at that time. She opted to
face her problems in silence. However, the respondent never
showed any remorse of what he did. His infidelity persisted and
neglected his duties as a husband. Sex became infrequent
afterwards;

13. In the year 2009, the respondent suddenly made a


wedding proposal to the petitioner. For her, she wanted to give
him a second chance hoping that he will change into a better
man in the future. She accepted his proposal and their wedding
was set on March 28, 2009 and it was attended by close friends
and relatives. After the ceremony, spouses went back to their
respective assignments as police officers;

14. In 2011, respondent was assigned in IlocosNorte while


petitioner was stationed in Antipolo, Rizal. He met an accident
and killed two pedestrians. Fortunately, he was able to settle
the case amicably with the victim’s family. When he went to
Manila to pick up the settlement money from his wife, he arrived
home drunk. He asked the petitioner that if ever he had another
woman, would she forgive him. Before the petitioner would
even answer him, he dozed off and slept;

15. On February 14, 2012, one of petitioner’s friends from


IlocosNorteMarielle Calumag called petitioner asking her if she
were in town. Marielle claimed that she saw petitioner’s
husband at a food chain, but she was not sure if it was the
petitioner that she saw for the girl seemed to be smaller than
her. The petitioner immediately confronted the respondent, but
he told her that the girl he was with at that time was only a
friend of his. She was not convinced so she took a vacation and
went home to his husband to clarify things;

16. When she confronted him about the girl named Cherry,
who was being linked to him since he was assigned in
IlocosNorte, respondent told her that she is a councillor of
Vintar, IlocosNorte and he used to escort her as a security
official;

17. They tried to patch things up, but the respondent


obviously lost his interest in his wife by his cold treatment. He
often went out with his friends instead of spending time with his
family. The petitioner tried to move on, but she continued to
hear unpleasant information against her husband. His
husband’s neglect of his marital obligations even became
worse. He became verbally abusive towards her to a point of
telling her that if only her parents were alive, he will return her
to them. Respondent never changed his attitude. He remained
indulgent to his infidelity;

18. His gross irresponsibility became a source of their fights


and quarrels. He continued to have illicit relationships to
different women. He never showed any drive to fulfil his
obligations as a husband and father;

19. The worst thing that the petitioner discovered was the
respondent having an affair with a married woman with
children. They also have a joint account in a social network and
she was able to read their secrets. For her it was signal that the
respondent is no longer interested in their marriage. Petitioner
was skin and bone after grieving from what she saw until she
decided to work in IlocosNorte in 2012. Sometime in 2013, the
respondent finally deserted his family and eloped with Cherry;

20. Petitioner never felt loved and never had any peace of
mind since they were married. She was always been
emotionally tormented on how her husband acted causing her
sleepless nights. After those hurtful events in her marital life,
petitioner came into a decision that she has to end her suffering
from her doomed marriage. She experienced emotional torment
throughout her marriage and believes that her marriage is
beyond repair;

21. However, the marriage between petitioner and


respondent is void from the beginning for the reason that at the
time petitioner and respondent contracted marriage, respondent
was psychologically incapacitated to perform the marital
obligations of marriage and such incapacity became manifest
only after the celebration of their marriage;

22. Petitioner and respondent are obliged under the law to


observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual
help and support, materially, socially, and spiritually, but these
are essential obligations of marriage which the respondent
failed to observe and is incapable of performing or fulfilling:
a. He is an avid partygoer, his friends and colleagues were
his priority rather that his wife or his family life and
children;

b. He is disloyal, disrespectful and notorious unfaithful to his


spouse;

c. He is grossly irresponsible and habitually dishonest;

d. He lacked remorse. Even if petitioner tried his best to


bear respondent’s shortcomings as a husband, he has
not done any move to change his ways or to ask an
apology for his misdeeds;

23. The foregoing acts show that respondent was remiss in


the performance of his marital obligations to render mutual help
and support and to observe mutual love, respect and infidelity;

24. Respondent’s psychological incapacity to perform the


essential marital obligations appears to be grave, incurable and
deeply-rooted as will be proven by a psychologist in the course
of the proceedings;

25. Petitioner was constrained to file this action to free herself


from the inequity of being bound by a marriage to a man who
only cares for himself and has totally neglected his marital
obligations to his wife;

26. Petitioner and respondent have no properties acquired


during their marriage that may be subject of discussion.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

1. The petitioner and respondent were married on 28 March 2009


as evidence by their NSO Marriage Certificate.
2. That Rosemarie Gaspar, their first child was born on March 15,
2004 as evidenced by her NSO Birth Certificate.

3. That Rhea Gaspar, their second child was born on May 5, 2005
as evidenced by his NSO Birth Certificate.

4. The petitioner and respondent did not acquire conjugal


properties of their own.

5. The qualifications of Ms. Aurea Lucas as Psychologist and


expert witness in her line of profession.

I S S U E/S

1. Whether or not either or both the petitioner and respondent


suffer from psychological incapacity in accordance with the
provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code.

2. Whether or not their marriage is void from the beginning in


accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS

“A” - Certificate of Marriage

Purpose: To prove that the petitioner is married to the


respondent on March 28, 2009.

“B” - Birth Certificate of Rosemarie Gaspar

Purpose: To prove the facts of the birth of their first child.

“C” - Birth Certificate of Rhea Gaspar

Purpose: To prove the facts of the birth of their second child.

“D” -Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor General

Purpose: To prove that the Solicitor General has


entered his appearance.

“D-1”- The delegation of the Provincial Prosecutor by the


Solicitor General
Purpose: To prove that the Provincial Prosecutor has been duly
deputized by the Solicitor General to appear in the above-cited
case.

“E to E-14”- Psychological Evaluation Report consisting of 15


pages.
“E-15”- Signature of Aurea Lucas

CommonPurpose: To prove that psychological evaluation and


testing had been conducted by AUREA LUCAS, a psychologist
by profession, upon the person of the petitioner; that after a
series of psychological test, personal interview and collateral
information, it was found out that the respondent, prior to and at
the time of the celebration of her marriage to the petitioner, is
psychologically incapacitated in fulfilling her marital obligations
on the account of grave, deeply rooted and incurable
NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH
ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY TRAITS.

“F”- Letter Invitation to respondent Richard Gaspar


“F-1”- Registry Receipt no. 4543.
“F-2”- Registry Return Receipt Card

Common Purpose: To prove that respondent was invited


for psychological testing by Ms. Aurea Lucas.

The petitioner reserves the right to mark additional exhibits


during the trail and for good cause shown.

WITNESSES

1. FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR


2. AUREA LUCAS
3. ONE COLLATERAL WITNESS

APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

Pertinent provisions of the Family Code and other laws


pertinent and relevant to the circumstances of the case as well as
appropriate and relevant to the circumstances of the case as well as
appropriate jurisprudence on the matter.
PROPOSED TRIAL DATES

Any day convenient to the Most Honorable Court and to the


parties.

Respectfully Submitted.

Laoag City, IlocosNorte. December 1. 2014.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Counsel of the Petitioner
Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

NOTICE

ATTY. JONAS CU
Clerk of Court
RTC-Branch 11
Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please submit this foregoing pre-trial brief for the kind


consideration of this Most Honorable Court.

Thank you and more power.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished:

APP KENNETH DOMINGO


OIC Provincial Prosecutor
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL ORDER

When the case was called for a pre-trial, Assistant Provincial


Prosecutor Kenneth Domingo appeared for the government
while Atty. Rowell Calma for the petitioner. Whereupon, the
parties entered into the following:

STIPULATIONS

1. That petitioner and respondent were married on March 28,


2009 as evidenced by their NSO Marriage Contract;

2. The existence, authenticity and due execution of the


marriage certificate between the plaintiff and defendant is
admitted;

3. That Rosemarie Gaspar, their first child, was born on March


15, 2004 as evidence by her NSO Birth Certificate;

4. The existence, authenticity and the due execution of the


Birth Certificate of Rosemarie Gaspar is admitted;

5. That Rhea Gaspar, their second child, was born on May 5,


2005 as evidence by his NSO Birth Certificate;
6. The existence, authenticity and the due execution of the
Birth Certificate of Rhea Gaspar is admitted;

7. The qualifications of Miss Aurea Lucas as psychologist and


expert witness in her line of profession is admitted.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not either or both the petitioner and the


respondent suffer from psychological incapacity in
accordance with the provisions of Article 36 of the Family
Code;

2. Whether or not their marriage is void from the beginning in


accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code;

WITNESSES
For the petitioner:
1. Frances Guerrero Gaspar
2. Aurea Lucas- the psychologist
3. One collateral witness

For the State:


No witness.

EXHIBITS
For the petitioner:
1. Exhibit “A”- Certificate of Marriage
2. Exhibit “B”- Birth Certificate of Grace Lei
Alegado
3. Exhibit “C”- Birth Certificate of Lee Gareth
Marumi
4. Exhibit “D”- Notice of Appearance of Solicitor
General
5. Exhibit “D-1”- The delegation of the Provincial
Prosecutor by the Solicitor General;
6. Exhibit “E” to “E-14”- Psychological Evaluation
Report consisting of 15 pages;
7. Exhibit “E-15”- Signature of Gemma Marie
Alhama;
8. Exhibit “F”- Letter invitation to respondent
Orlando P. Marumi
9. Exhibit “F-1”- Registry Receipt No. 4523;
10. Exhibit “F-2”- Registry Return Receipt Card.

The petitioner reserves the right to mark additional exhibits during


the trial and for good cause shown.

For the State:

No documentary exhibits.

TRIAL DATE

December 11, 2014 at 8:30 o-clock in the morning.

The pre-trial is now deemed terminated. The parties are given


five (5) days from receipt of the Pre-trial Order within which to
suggest correction/s should they find any error/s therein. After said
period, no amendment shall be allowed and the Pre-trial Order shall
control the proceedings in the case. The parties and their respective
counsels are notified of the scheduled date of hearing in open court
which is considered non-transferable.

SO ORDERED.

Given in open court this 4th day of December 2014 at Laoag


City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
RL PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING CENTER
Balintawak St. Laoag City

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR

(Petitioner)

-versus-

RICHARD C. GASPAR

(Respondent)
1. IDENTIFYING DATA
Name : Frances G. Gaspar
Birthday : 18 April 1982
Age : 32 years old
Gender : Female
Birth Order : 4th of 6 siblings
Educational Attainment : College Graduate
Occupation : Police Officer
Name of Spouse : Richard C. Gaspar
Date of Marriage : March 28, 2009

2. REASON FOR REFERRAL


For psychological testing and evaluation in relation to her
petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage.

3. TEST ADMINISTERED
Culture Fair Intelligence Test
16 Personality Factor Test
Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test
Draw-a-Person Test
Draw a House-Tree-Person Test
Marriage Sentence Completion Test

4. COLLATERAL INFORMATION
1. Document Review
a. Marriage Certificate
b. Birth Certificate
c. Internet Sources
2. Collateral Informants
a. Marielle Calumag- common friends of petitioner and
the respondent
b. Aira Sangalang-co-worker of petitioner
c.

5. DATE OF EXAMINATION
17 May 2014
19 May 2014
20 May 2014
21 May 2014

6. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The petitioner of this case isFRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


a Filipino citizen, 32 years of age and a resident of Barangay 9-Sta.
Angela, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. She is a college degree holder of
Bachelor of Science in Criminology at Northwestern University. She is
presently employed as a Police Officer at the Philippine National
Police.

The respondent of this case isRichard C. Gaspar, a native of


Vintar, Ilocos Norte. Like the petitioner, he is also a graduate of
Bachelor of Science in Criminology at Northwestern University and a
Police Officer. He is presently living with another woman named
Cherry with whom he has a common child.

The petitioner and respondent have two children namely,


Rosemarie and RheaGaspar. Their children are under the custody
and care of the petitioner since the respondent abandoned his family.
The petitioner is financially supporting her two children since her
husband neglected them.

The petitioner was born on the 18th day of April 1982 to


spouses Leon and Teresita Alegado. She is the 4th among 5 broods.
Her father was a good provider and a principled man. He was a
disciplinarian and at the same time a loving man. Petitioner recounted
that her parents had a harmonious relationships as husband and
wife. They had interdependence to each other. Her mother was a
nurturing wife who provided warmth and care to her children. The
petitioner and her siblings had high regards to their father for he had
inculcated to them good moral values when they were still young. Her
mother played the role of a good mother and a submissive wife. She
and her children were close to each other as she treated them in a
loving and caring way.

Petitioner’s parents are of both Ilocano descent. She


remembers that her mother is in charge with the household and
taught her to how to cook, wash the dishes and clean the house.
Leah was exposed to a very challenging life due to financial difficulty
when they were young. Nevertheless, they lived a simple but descent
life. They were also raised to give due respect to one another
regardless of their status in life.

Frances attended Salbang Elementary School and graduated in


1995. She continued her secondary education at Mariano Marcos
State University and finished it in 1999. Keeping her parents’
teachings in mind, she behaved in school and performed her best.
She was quite active with all their school activities. She was average
and she was able to graduate elementary on time. In the early part of
her high school, the petitioner considered to take up a college
degree.

When Frances graduated in high school, she pursued a course


in criminology and dreamed of becoming a police officer in the future.
She met the respondent, Richard Gaspar of this case in 2002. Better
known as “Chad” by his friends, he is a computer technology
graduate who took a second course in criminology. At that time, they
were classmates in Chemistry. The petitioner and respondent got to
know each other after a while of being classmates. The respondent
impressed the petitioner of being a gentleman by his thoughtful and
sweet ways. She also admired his intelligence as well as gift for
words.

Eventually, the respondent started to show his admiration


towards her by formally courting the petitioner sometime in November
2002. Since the petitioner and respondent had a positive mutual
feelings to each other, she accepted his love a month later. Sex
became a part of their relationship until the petitioner was
impregnated by the respondent in 2003. Because of what had
happened, they decided to live together as husband and wife under a
common law partnership with the consent of their parents. The
petitioner gave birth to her first child, Rosemarie on Marh 15, 2004
and her second child Rhea was born on May 5, 2005.
The petitioner and respondent continued their studies with the
help of their parents. The respondent graduated in 2005 and passed
his licensure examination in criminology. Same is true with the
petitioner. The respondent was hired as a policeman. His first
assignment was at the National Capital Region.

The petitioner and respondent were supposed to get married


during those times but the petitioner began to have a second thought
in marrying his live in partner because she observed unpleasant traits
of the respondent. For instance, he would piss her off by pinching her
arms or her face when she was pregnant. They quarrelled every day
because of misunderstandings. He is very irresponsible as indicated
by his acts of non-cooperation in doing household chores. Instead of
helping his wife, he prefers to stay out with his friends to have good
times and comes home late of early in the morning the following day.
His unmindful ways persisted even with the presence of their two kids
and fighting between the petitioner and respondent became a daily
routine. The petitioner recounted that most of their arguments were
triggered by his irresponsibility and neglectful attitude. She also
noticed that her husband was never close to his children because he
never made an effort in taking care of them.

Sometime in 2007, she started to notice that her husband is


acting differently. One time, the respondent arrived dead drunk, his
cellular phone’s battery was drained. She charged the phone and go
curious with his inbox and to her surprise she discovered a text
message telling the respondent how thankful she was for dropping
by. The petitioner got her number and started to set her a date in
Jollibee the following morning. The petitioner also invited him.
The following day, the three met in Jollibee and petitioner
confirmed that the respondent had a nocturnal relationship with the
other woman. The woman admitted that they have an illicit affair. The
respondent was speechless and could not say a word. The petitioner
made her statement and went home. The petitioner opted to address
their problem with calm for she was already working as a police
officer. She opted to face the problems in silence. However, the
respondent never showed any remorse of what he did. His infidelity
persisted and neglected his duties as a husband. Sex became
infrequent afterwards.

In 2009, the respondent suddenly made a wedding proposal to


the petitioner. For her she wanted to give him a second chance
hoping that he will change into a better man in the future. She
accepted his proposal and their wedding was set on Mach 28, 2009
and it was attended by close friends and relatives. After the
ceremony, the spouses went back to their respective post.

The respondent was assigned in Ilocos Norte in 2011 while the


petitioner remained in Antipolo, Rizal. He met an accident and killed
two pedestrians. Fortunately, he was able to settle the case amicably
with the victim’s family.

When he went Manila to pick up the settlement money from his


wife, he arrived home drunk. He asked the petitioner that if ever he
had another woman, would she forgive him? Before the petitioner
would even answer hi, he dozed off and slept.

On February 14, 2012, one of her friends from Ilocos Norte


called her asking if she were in town. Marielle Calumag claimed that
she saw her husband in Mang Inasal but she was not sure if it was
the petitioner that she saw for the girl seemed to be smaller than her.
The petitioner immediately confronted the respondent but he told her
that the girl was with at that time was only a friend of his. She was not
convinced with his explanations so she took a vacation and went
home to clarify things. When she confronted him about the girl named
Cherry, who was being linked with him since he came home, he told
her that she is a councillor of Vintar and he use to escort her officially.

They tried to patch things up but the respondent obviously lost


his interest to his wife by his cold treatment. He often goes out with
his friends instead of spending time with his family. The petitioner
tried to move on but she continued to hear unpleasant information
against her husband. His husband neglect even became worst. He
became verbally abusive towards her to a point of telling her that if
only her parents were alive, he will return her to them. He never
changed his attitude. He remained indulgent to his infidelity.
His gross irresponsibility became a source of their fights and
quarrels. He continued to have illicit relationships to different women.
He never showed any drive to make amends of his shortcomings.

The worst thing that she discovered was he has an affair with a
woman with children. They also have a joint account in facebook and
she was able to read their secrets. For her it was a signal that the
respondent is no longer interested in their marriage. Petitioner was
skin and bone after grieving from what was she saw until she decided
to work in Ilocos Norte in 2012. Sometime in 2013, he finally deserted
his family and eloped with Cherry sometime in 2013.

After those hurtful events in her marital life, petitioner came into
a decision that she has to end her suffering from her doomed
marriage. She experienced emotional torment through her marriage
and believes that her marriage is already beyond repair. At this point
in time, she already lost trust and confidence in her marriage, hence,
this petition.

7. BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS

Petitioner answered the questions candidly. She was very


detailed in giving her answers but she was not able to recall the dates
when the incidents happened. She maintained eye contact during the
interview. Her face brightened up when she recalled her childhood
and high school years. She became emotional in some parts of the
interview especially when she narrated how she was maltreated by
the respondent. She was very expressive that she greatly regrets that
she gave the respondent so many chances. Her speech was clear
and her sentence construction was organized. No strange behaviour
was displayed during the sessions. Her mood was euthymic. She was
cooperative in accomplishing the tasks assigned and executed them
without difficulty. She was emotional in relating her stories especially
with her marital life.

8. TEST RESULTS, INTERPRETATION, AND


RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner obtained an IQ which is equivalent to 85. A score that


is under average level. Her intellectual potential imply that she is
capable to grasp and understand abstract reasoning. She has
moderate potential in acquiring continued learning, and has the ability
to make sound decisions in life. Marital distress and emotional trauma
were noted in her protocol and in her clinical in-depth interviews. She
emphasized on the undesirable qualities of her spouse and wishes
that her partner could have been more responsible, loving, and
caring. She perceives him as a person who cannot fulfil his marital
obligations because of his insensitive, selfish, and violent behavior.
Fear and disgust from her husband is also manifested. She aspires
for a bright future and her aggression is directed towards meeting her
goals.

Socially, she is moderately introverted. She may become


selective in making close connections, a behavior that is correlated
with her feelings of distrust with other people. Sexually, she identifies
with the female gender and perceives the opposite sex as dominant.

She may have difficulty in building up a future heterosexual


relationship because of her traumatic experience with the respondent.
Thus, her social dealings may become superficial or shallow in order
to protect herself from being hurt again. She is cautious and guarded
in dealing with other people especially to strangers. Denial, fantasy,
and rationalization form part of her defensive mechanism.

Based on the accounts of petitioner, her psychological protocol,


and collateral information, it can be inferred that subject spouses
developed Severe Partner Relational Problem during the span of their
marriage. Respondent’s maladaptive behavior made their relationship
became unstable. He is a person who cannot fulfil his marital
obligations because of the manifestation of an underlying Personality
Disorder specifically a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with
Antisocial Personality Traits.

Respondent not only failed to fulfil his marital obligations but


also failed to provide for a safe and comfortable environment to his
family because of the pervasive manifestations of such disorder. NPD
is a specified type of a personality disorder. It is characterized by a
pervasive pattern of maladaptive thinking, feeling and behaving. It is
developmental in nature. Generally, people with NPD refuse
treatment because they do not recognize the fact that they have a
problem. Yet they often create problem to other people.

They are preoccupied with their belief of great success and


beauty. Their relationships are disturbed by malignant self-love and
feelings of envy. To satisfy their Narcissistic needs, they tend to seek
out other with whom they can be exploit but never allows anyone to
be generally close to them. Narcissists’ personal relationships are few
and when their expectations are not met, they may become angry
and rejecting (Abnormal Psychology, 8th Ed. Davidson and Neale).

Narcissists are impulsive and do not take into consideration the


probable consequences of their actions. They are also dismissive of
other people’s concern, feelings. In the case of respondent, he
perceives his marriage as a blockage of his personal objectives and
strong need for autonomy and emancipation. As a result, he tends to
be unconcerned, ignoring, insensitive, and neglectful in fulfilling the
demands of his present marriage. He believes that her head over
heels in love with him and that she would give everything to him in
spite of his harsh treatment towards her. His selfish or egocentric
prevented him from reciprocating the love of her wife and him.

His persistent infidelity hindered him to become responsible


husband nor a fully functioning individual. He failed to understand and
fulfil the essential marital obligations that his wife deserves during the
course f their marriage. The petitioner was emotionally abused and
deprived economically for long time. For a long time, she has been
psychologically tormented. Her horrible experiences still haunts her
causing her sleepless nights even at present.

In spite of petitioner’s effort in building a meaningful


relationships, respondent never turned into a better man. He
continued to manifest maladaptive behaviors. He failed to give
meaning and significance to their marriage because of his personality
disorder.

From all indications, the nature of respondent’s psychological


incapacity is grave, incurable, and deep-rooted and would persist
over time. Therefore, it is recommended that this petition for
declaration of nullity and marriage be granted.

Prepared by:

AUREA LUCAS
Psychologist
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF PSYCHOLOGIST,


AUREA LUCAS

I, AUREA LUCAS, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single and a


resident of Brgy. 19, Laoag City, Philippines, after having duly sworn
to in accordance with the law, do hereby voluntarily submits myself
for examination before ATTY. ROWELL CALMA at his law office
located at the 2nd Floor 888 Realty Bldg. Balintawak Cor Gen. Luna,
2900 Laoag City, Ilocos Norte Philippines and that I will answer all the
questions being asked duly conscious that I am under oath and I may
face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

Q1: Do you know the FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, the


petitioner in this case?
A1: Yes sir.

Q2: Why do you know her?


A2: She was referred to me for psychological testing and
evaluation sir.

Q3: What was the reason for the referral?


A3: The referral was in relation to her petition for the declaration of
nullity of her marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
sir.

Q4: Did you conduct a psychological examination and evaluation


upon the petitioner, FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR?
A4: Yes, Sir.
Q5: How about the respondent, RICHARD C. GASPAR, did you
happen to interview him?
A5: No sir. In spite of the invitation made by yours truly, he failed
to appear for the scheduled session sir.

Q6: What was the purpose of the psychological evaluation Madam


witness?
A6: The primary purpose of the psychological evaluation was to
determine if there is psychological incapacity on either or both of the
parties in fulfilling their basic marital obligation sir.

Q7: What is your basis in making the Psychological Evaluation


Report upon the petitioner?
A7: Clinical in-depth interviews were conducted upon the petitioner,
a battery of psychological tests were administered, and interviews
from collateral informants sir.

Q8: You mentioned of a series of psychological test that you


administered upon the petitioner, what are these psychological tests?
A8: The following are the test given to the petitioner, Culture Fair
Intelligence Test, Bender- Visual Motor Gestalt Test, A 16 Personality
Trait Test, Draw a Person test, Draw a House-Tree Person Test and
Marriage Sentence Completion Test.

Q9: What is the purpose of these psychological tests?


A9: The purpose of the battery of tests are the following: for the
Culture Fain Intelligence Test, it is to determine the baseline IQ of the
client; the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test is to determine if there is
a cranial damage on the part of the client, while the other tests are
kind of projective tests where the affective, rational, behavioral
aspects of the individual is being drawn especially those that are not
readily observable in ordinary situation.

Q10: You also mentioned of clinical in-depth interview with the


petitioner, what is the purpose of this interview?
A10: It is a structured set of questions that will gather essential
information relating to the marital life of the parties involved and other
data necessary to the case study.

Q11: Again you mentioned that you interviewed collateral


informants, what is the purpose of these interviews made upon by
collateral informants?
A11: This is also a procedure to gather data coming from the
viewpoint of common friends, relatives and other persons who can
provide information regarding the relationship or marital life of the
subject clients particularly because respondent did not appear for the
interview despite my invitations to her.
Q12: After a series of psychological tests, the clinical in-depth
interviews and the interviews you made upon collateral informants,
what were your findings?
A12: No dysfunction in the areas of functioning was noted on the
petitioner sir. However, it has been found that the psychological
incapacity of the respondent is grave, incurable and deeply-rooted
and it would persist over time.

Q13: What are your findings upon the respondent Madam witness?
A13: The result shows that the respondent is psychologically
incapacitated in fulfilling his marital obligations sir. On the other hand,
the petitioner’s psychologically capacitated in fulfilling the same sir.

Q14: What is the psychological incapacity of respondent that you


found in your evaluation?
A14: The respondent is a person who is suffering from a
Personality Disorder sir, specially a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Q15: Will this psychological incapacity of respondent affect his


capacity to perform his marital obligations?
A15: Yes sir.

Q16: Was that Psychological Evaluation Report you made upon


reduced into writing?
A16: Yes sir.

Q17: Is this the Psychological Evaluation Report attached to your


Judicial Affidavit and which I am marking as Exhibit “E”?
A17: Yes sir.

Q18: In layman’s term, can you explain this psychological


incapacity if the respondent?
A18: The psychological incapacity of the respondent is accounted
for by the pervasive manifestation of his personality disorder. As I
said a while ago, he possesses a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
People with this kind of disorder have problematic relationships
because of their unstable personality. It is pervasive and
developmental in nature.

Q19: Did this personality disorder of respondent affect the


marriage of the subject petitioner and respondent?
A19: Yes sir.

Q20: In what way? Will you explain that to the Honorable Court?
A20: Since a Narcissistic Person like that of the respondent is self-
centred and they do not feel any remorse whenever they violate the
rights of other people. They are also exploitative and tend to become
demeaning and abusive to people who are close to them. Hence, if
married, marital instability is expected because of the
characterological problem. Subject spouses developed Partner
Relational Problem during the course of their marriage that led to
their final separation. This problem is a result of the unstable
relationship and psychological incapacity of the respondent in
understanding and fulfilling her marital obligations.

Q21: In your opinion as an expert, what is the severity of the


psychological incapacity of the respondent?
A21: It is grave, deeply-rooted and incurable sir.

Q22: Will you cite some instances during the marriage of petitioner
and respondent wherein these psychological incapacity of respondent
was manifested?
A22: Even prior to the marriage, the respondent already displayed
neglectful attitude in dealing with the petitioner. He was passive and
never showed any expression of support or affection towards the
petitioner. He acted like a single person and never showed any
concern about his family. In fact, it was always the petitioner who
exerted effort in building their family because of his evasive
character. He does not confront or face any marital issue, instead he
would avoid the petitioner leaving her hanging most of the times.
When his wife discovered his involvement with another woman, he
never exhibited any remorse. She forgave him but he continued with
his indiscretions. Eventually, he slowly evaded the petitioner and their
child and made it obvious that he is no longer interested with the
petitioner and to his family.
His infidelity persisted until he is no longer ashamed with his
infidelity. Frances discovered that the respondent and his girlfriend
from Vintar have a joint Facebook account. At present, respondent is
now living with another woman, and never gave any support to his
family.

Q23: Why do you say that it is grave?


A23: It is grave because the disorder impaired the affective and
rational functioning of the subject respondent sir.

Q24: Why do you say that it is deep-rooted?


A24: It is deeply-rooted because, the Personality Disorder is already
embedded to the personality of the individual which is already
crystallized at this point in time sir.

Q25: Why do you say that it is incurable?


A25: It is incurable because up to the present, there is no known
drug to extinguish in Personality Disorder.

Q26: In your opinion, Madame, will not this psychological


incapacity of the respondent be cured by clinical methods?
A26: No sir.
Q27: Why?
A27: Since the primary feature of the disorder is that the person
who suffers from it does not recognize the problem, hence, they do
not seek any intervention to manage their behavior. They deny that
they have a problem but they are not aware that they create problems
to other people most specialty to those who are close to them sir.

Q28: Did you execute a written statement in connection with this


case?
A28: Yes sir.

Q29: Is this the same statement you are referring to?


A29: Yes sir.

Q30: In your opinion as an expert, will a person suffering from


psychological incapacity like the respondent still be able to maintain
marital relationships with another person not the petitioner?
A30: There is no guarantee sir.

Q31: Why?
A31: Because the manifestation of his Personality Disorder may
surface out at any point in time sir.

Q32: What kind of personality will the respondent be able to relate


with?
A32: There is no specific personality sir.

Q33: If you were able to interview the respondent in this case, will
your findings be different?
A33: My findings will still be the same sir.

Q34: Why?
A34: Because the responses of the respondent will affirm the
accounts of the petitioner and other collateral information.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st


day of January, 2015, in the City of Laoag, Philippines.

AUREA LUCAS
Affiant
ATTESTATION

I, ATTY. ROWELL CALMA, under oath, hereby attest that I have


faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I asked
and the corresponding answers that she gave, and that neither I nor
any other person then present or assisting him/her coached the
witness regarding the latter’s answers.

ROWELL CALMA
Roll No. 1234-4
Issued by the IBP

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21st day of


January, 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines, affiant
exhibiting to me his Roll of Attorneys ID Card indicated below his
name and signature, and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed
this Attestation.

Doc. No.: ___ ATTY. LIZ R. DOMINGO


Page No.: ___ Notary Public
Book No.: ___ Until December 31, 2014
Series of: ___ Roll No.1476-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123986-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7632451-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0006659, June 26, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

After the completion of the testimony Clinical Psychologist


Aurea Lucas, a continuance is hereby granted for the presentation of
other witness(es) for the petitioner.

The continuation of the trial is hereby set on February 12, 2015


at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

SO ORDERED.

Given in open court this 26th day of January 2015 at Laoag City,
IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, FRANCES GUERREREO GASPAR, 32 years of age,


married, a Police Officer 2, and a resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela,
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with the law, do hereby depose and state that:

The person taking my judicial affidavit is ATTY. ROWELL


CALMA taken at his law office namely CALMA LAW OFFICE located
at Room 205, 888 Bldg., Gen. Luna cor. Balintawak Sts., Laoag City.

I am answering the following questions propounded to me to


the best of my knowledge of the true facts and circumstances, and
that I may be held criminally liable for false testimony or perjury:

PURPOSE OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS

This Judicial Affidavit of FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, the


petitioner in this case, is executed to serve as her direct testimony in
this petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.

This Judicial Affidavit is being offered to prove the following:

1. All the material allegations in the petition and the


circumstances that transpired with constrained the petitioner
to file this petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
against the herein respondent;
2. The facts and circumstances that would show the
manifestations of the psychological incapacity of the
respondent before, during, and after the celebration of
marriage of the parties;

3. All other matters, facts and circumstances related to this


case.
She will also be presented for the purpose of identifying some
documents relative hereto.

1. Q : Madam, Witness are you same Frances Guerrero


Gaspar, the petitioner in this case?
A : Yes sir.

2. Q : And how are you related to the respondent Richard C.


Gaspar?
A : He is my husband, sir.

3. Q : When and where did you marry him?


A : We got married on March 28, 2009 in Vintar, Ilocos
Norte, sir.

4. Q : Do you have any documentary proof of your marriage?


A : Yes, we have a Marriage Certificate, and it is attached to
my petition as Annex “A”, sir.

5. Q : If that marriage certificate you are referring to will be


shown to you, will you be able to recognize the same?
A : Yes sir.

6. Q : I am showing you a marriage certificate, is this the one


you are referring to?
A : Yes, sir.

7. Q : I am marking this marriage certificate as Exhibit “A” and


attach the same to your judicial affidavit, do you confirm my
action?
A : Yes, sir.

8. Q : Do you have a child or children with your husband?


A : Yes, sir.

9. Q : How many and what are their names and ages?


A : We have two (2) children, ROSEMARIE GASPAR, 10
years old, and RHEA GASPAR, 9 years old, sir.

10. Q : Do you have proof that indeed they are your children?
A : Yes sir, I have their Birth Certificates attached to my
petition as Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively.

11. Q : If those birth certificates you are referring to will be


shown to you, will you be able to recognize the same?
A : Yes, sir.

12. Q : I am showing you the birth certificate of Rosemarie and


Rhea, are these the documents you are referring to?
A : Yes, sir.

13. Q : I am marking the birth certificate of Rosemarie Gaspar as


Exhibit “B” and the birth certificate of Rhea Gaspar as Exhibit
“C”, and attach the same to your judicial affidavit, do you confirm
my action?
A : Yes, sir.

14. Q : When and where did you meet your husband?


A : I met him sometime in 2002 at Laoag City, sir. We were
then both Criminology students at Northwestern University. He
courted me and he became my boyfriend sir.

15. Q : For how long did he court you before he became your
boyfriend?
A : He courted me for a month, sir. He started courting me
in November 2002.

16. Q : After you and respondent became sweethearts, how do


you describe your relationship with him?
A : Things got fast because sex instantly became a part of
our relationship. I got pregnant in 2003, sir.

17. Q : Did you then stop your relationship with him because of
this?
A : No, sir, we continued our relationship. Because of what
had happened, we decided to live together as husband and wife
under a common law partnership with the consent of our
parents. After the birth of our first child in 2004, I got pregnant
again. I gave birth to our second child the following year. We
also both graduated in 2005.

18. Q : After your graduation what had happened next, if any?


A : We both passed our licensure examination in
criminology sir. He was hired as a policeman and was assigned
at the National Capital Region. We were supposed to get
married during those times, but I began to have second thought
in marrying him, because I observed his unpleasant traits. We
quarrelled every daybecause of misunderstandings. He turned
out to be grossly irresponsible as a head of the family. Instead of
helping me, he preferred to stay out with his friends to have
good time at almost every night and more often than not comes
home early in the morning the following day. His unmindful ways
persisted even with the presence of our two kids, so much so
that fighting between us became a daily routine. Most of our
arguments were triggered by his irresponsibility and neglectful
attitude. I also noticed that he was never close to our children,
because he never made an effort in taking care of them.

19. Q : What else transpired during your span of time if any?


A : Sometime in 2007, I started to notice that he was acting
differently. Unlike before, he had turned cold and indifferent
towards me when we were living in Calamba, Laguna sir. I felt
he was doing something not right. I was then correct.

20. Q : Why do you say so?


A : One time, he arrived dead drunk, his cellular phone’s
battery was drained. I charged his phone and after browsing its
messages, I discovered a text message by a woman telling him
how thankful she was for dropping by. I got her number and
started to set up a date with that woman at Jollibee the following
morning. I also invited my husband.

21. Q : What happened next?


A : The following day, the three of us met at a Jollibee
branch and I have confirmed that he had a nocturnal relationship
with the other woman. The woman admitted that they have an
affair. I also discovered that she was a saleslady from Laguna.
My husband was speechless and could not say a word. I opted
to address the situation calmly for I was already working as a
police officer at that time. I wanted to save my face so I opted to
face my marital problems in silence. However, my husband
never showed any remorse of what he did. His fidelity persisted
and neglected his duties as a husband. Sex became infrequent
afterwards.

22. Q : So did you break up with him after that?


A : No sir. I still give him another chance to save our
relationship.

23. Q : What then happened next?


A : I forgave him sir. We continued our relationship. In the
year 2009, he suddenly made a wedding proposal to me. I
wanted to give him a second chance hoping that he will change
into a better man in the future. I accepted his proposal and our
wedding was set on March 28, 2009 and it was attended by
close friends and relatives. After the ceremony, we went back to
our respective assignments as police officers.

24. Q : Did he change into a better man, then?


A : Yes, but not for long, sir.

25. Q : Why do you say that?


A : In 2011, he was assigned in Ilocos Norte while I was
stationed in Antipolo, Rizal. He met an accident and killed two
pedestrians. Fortunately, he was able to settle the case amicably
with the victim’s family. When he went to Manila to pick up the
settlement money from me, he arrived home drunk. He asked
me that if ever he had another woman, would I forgive him. But
before I could even answer him, he dozed off and slept, sir. His
remarks puzzled me and made me to think that he might be
having another affair again. I was right again for the second
time, sir.

26. Q : How is that so?


A : On February 14, 2012, one of my friends from Ilocos
Norte, MARIELLE CALUMAG, called me asking me if I were in
town. Janice claimed that she saw my husband at a food chain,
but she was not sure if it was me who was with my husband,
because the girl she saw seemed to be smaller than me. I then
immediately confronted my husband, but he told me that the girl
he was with at the time was only a friend of his. I was not
convinced with his explanations so I took a vacation and went
home to Ilocos Norte to clarify things.

27. Q : What happened next if any?


A : I went home to Ilocos Norte, sir. When I confronted him
about the girl named Cherry, who was being linked to him since
he was assigned in Ilocos Norte, he told me that she is a
councillor of Vintar, Ilocos Norte and he used to escort her as a
security officially.

28. Q : What happened after that?


A : I tried to patch things up, but he obviously lost his
interest in me by his cold treatment. He often went out with his
friends instead of spending time with his family. I tried to move
on, but I continue to hear unpleasant information against my
husband. My husband’s neglect of his marital obligations even
became worse. He became verbally abusive towards me to a
point of telling me that if only my parents were still alive, he will
return me to them. He never changed his attitude. He remained
indulgent to his infidelity and vices.

29. Q : He never stopped doing those things despite your


confrontation?
A : No sir. His gross irresponsibility became a source of our
fights and quarrels. He continued to have illicit relationships to
other women. He never showed any drive to fulfil his obligations
as a husband and father.

30. Q : What else did you find out if any?


A : The worst thing I discovered was having an affair with a
married woman with children. They also have a joint account in a
social network and I was able to read their secrets. For me, it
was a signal that he is no longer interested in our marriage. I
was skin and bone after grieving from what I saw until I decided
to work in Ilocos Norte in 2012.

31. Q : Are you still living with him?


A : No more, sir. Sometime in 2013, he finally deserted me
and our children and eloped with Cherry.

32. Q : How would you describe your marital life with the
respondent then as a whole?
A : Very tragic sir. I never felt I was loved and never had
any peace of mind since we lived together until we were married.
I had always been emotionally tormented on how my husband
acted, causing me sleepless nights. After those hurtful events in
our marital life, I came into a decision that this is the time to end
my sufferings from my doomed marriage. I experienced
emotional torment throughout our marriage and I do believe that
our marriage is already beyond repair.

33. Q : Under whose custody then are your children?


A : They are with me sir. If I am assigned to a different
place, I leave them to my older brother, Villamor Guerrero, in
Paoay, Ilocos Norte.

34. Q : After telling of these, what do you pray then of this


Honorable Court?
A : I pray that the Honorable Court will consider my plea to
have this marriage declared null and void, as my husband, as
shown by his acts of neglecting and abandoning me and our
children in favour of another woman, among others, cannot
perform his basic marital obligations and as a responsible father
to our children, sir.
35. Q : Do you have common properties for dissolution?
A : None, sir.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affix


my signature this 6th day of February, 2015 at Laoag City, Ilocos
Norte, Philippines.

FRANCES G. GASPAR
PRC License No. 0030649
Issued by PRC
Expiry: April 18, 2017

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of


February, 2015 at Laoag City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her
identification card indicated below her name and signature as
competent proof of her identity.

Doc. No. : __ ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Page No.: __ Notary Public
Book No.: __ Until December 31, 2014
Series of ___ Roll No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0006479, June 26, 2012
ATTESTATION

I, ATTY. ROWELL CALMA, under oath, hereby attest that I


have faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I
asked and the corresponding answers that the witness gave, and that
neither I nor any other person then present or assisting her coached
the witness regarding the latter’s answers.

ROWELL CALMA
Roll of Attorneys No. 1234-4
Issued by the IBP

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before this 6th day of February,


2015 at Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me
his proof of identity below his name and signature, and I am satisfied
that he voluntarily executed this Attestation.

Doc. No.: ___ ATTY. LIZ R. DOMINGO


Page No.: ___ Notary Public
Book No.: ___ Until December 31, 2014
Series of: ___ Roll No.1476-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123986-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7632451-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0006659, June 26, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

When this case was called for hearing, OIC Provincial


Prosecutor KENNETH DOMINGO appeared for the government while
Atty. Rowell Calma is not in court because his mom was hospitalized.
The hearing is thus cancelled and reset to April 20, 2015 at 8:30
o’clock in the morning.

SO ORDERED.

Given in open court this 23rd day of March 2015 at Laoag City,
IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

In view that the Presiding Judge was on sick leave yesterday


February 12, 2015, the hearing is thus cancelled and re-set to
February 26, 2015 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

SO ORDERED.

Given in chambers this 13th day of February 2015 at Laoag


City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, PO1 AIRA SANGALANG, 25 years of age, single, police


woman, and a resident of Brgy. 3, Bacarra, ILocosNorte, Philippines,
after having been duly sworn in accordance with the law, do hereby
depose and state that:

The person taking my judicial affidavit is Atty. ROWELL CALMA


taken at his law office at Calma Law Office, Rm. 205 888 Realty
Bldg., Gen. Luna cor. Balintawak St., Laoag City, Philippines;

I am answering the following questions propounded to me to the


best of my knowledge of the true facts and circumstances, and that I
may be held criminally liable for false testimony or perjury.

Q-1 Do you know FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, the


petitioner in this case?
A-1 Yes sir.

Q-2 How do you know her?


A-2 She is a friend of mine sir.

Q-3 How about the respondent RICHARD C. GASPAR do you


know him?
Q-3 Yes sir, he is the husband of Frances.

Q-4 How long have you known them as couple?


A-4 Since their marriage in 2009 sir.
Q-5 And how do you describe their marital life?
A-5 From what I have personally witnessed and known, their
life as couple is doomed from the very beginning. They have
severe marital problems, sir.

Q-6 When you say severe marital problems, what problems in


particular do you mean?
A-6 The womanizing ways of the respondent and his total
disregard of his responsibilities as husband and father led to
their separation, sir.

Q-7 You mean to say you are well aware that they are already
separated from each other?
A-7 Yes sir. They no longer live together as couple since 2013.

Q-8 And how did you know that, if I may ask?


A-8 As a close friend of the petitioner, I witnessed personally
how Frances suffered from their marriage, sir. I sometimes
accompany Frances in tracing the whereabouts of her husband
when he does not come home. She also opens up to me
regarding her marital problems.

Q-9 Why did you say that their marriage was doomed from the
beginning?
A-9 The respondent already showed no signs that he will be a
responsible family man and his propensity to be involved with
severe girls even before they got married, sir.

Q-10 Despite of this, the petitioner went on to marry the


respondent?
A-10 Yes sir. She married him over our objection as her friends.
Frances hoped and wanted him to change into a better man
once they are already married. Unfortunately, respondent
became worse, sir. They quarrel always right after their
marriage.

Q-11 Do you know the reason for their quarrels?


A-11 Yes, sir. Respondent is always out at night leaving his
family. He is always out with friends, drinking and womanizing.
He even make as an excuse his job as policeman just to be
able to go out. For the times that Frances caught Richard with
other women, she always gave him a chance to change but he
never did.

Q-12 Was Frances able to prove that her husband is into an


illicit affair with other women?
A-12 Yes, sir. I and Frances saw it personally. Respondent
confessed to it. Our other friends from IlocosNorte also saw it,
sir.
Q-13 Aside from these, what else do you know?
A-13 Frances also discovered that respondent is involved with
a married woman with children, sir. This was extra painful to
Frances because it happened after respondent told Frances
that he will stop seeing other women. It became a vicious cycle,
sir.

Q-14 And what happened after that?


A-14 In 2013, respondent left Frances and their two children,
sir.

Q-15 What did Frances do?


A-15 It took her some time to recover, sir. Then she made a
decision to file this annulment case.

Q-16 As a friend, are you in favor of the annulment of their


marriage?
A-16 Yes sir. Frances did everything she could to save their
marriage, but Richard did not do his part. He went on with his
womanizing and irresponsible ways. He neglected his family
without any sign of remove, sir. Frances must also move on
with a new life.

Q-17 Do you have other things to say?


A-17 No more, sir.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this


th
20 day of April, 2015 at Laoag City, Philippines.

PO1 AIRA SANGALANG


Affiant
PNP ID No. 12E230298
Valid Until 7/7/2015

SUBCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of April,


2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me
her PNP ID indicated below her name and signature as competent
proof of her identity, and I am satisfied that she understood and
voluntarily executes this judicial affidavit.

Doc. No. : __ ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Page No.: __ Notary Public
Book No.: __ Until December 31, 2014
Series of ___
Roll No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0006479, June 26, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

When this case was called for hearing, OIC Provincial Prosecutor
Kenneth Domingo appeared for the government while Atty. Rowell Calma
for the petitioner.

PO1 AiraSangalang was presented to the witness stand. Her


testimony is finally completed and terminated.

Considering the manifestation of Atty. Calma that she is the last


witness for the petitioner, he thus prayed that he be given a period of
fifteen (15) days from today to submit the written formal offer of exhibits.
Finding the herein motion to be impressed with merit, the same is hereby
granted. Thus, the petitioner thru counsel is directed to submit the written
formal offer of exhibits within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Order
and the same number of days is likewise is accorded the prosecution to
submit its comment or opposition thereto.

After which, this case shall be deemed submitted for resolution.

SO ORDERED.

Given in open court this 4th day of May 2015 at Laoag City,
IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

When this case was called for hearing, OIC Provincial Prosecutor
Kenneth Domingo appeared for the government while Atty. Rowell
Calma for the petitioner.

Considering the manifestation of Atty. Calma that his intended


witness would not come to and without objection on the part of the
trial prosecutor, the hearing is thus cancelled and re-set to May 04,
2015 at 8:30 in the morning.

SO ORDERED.

Given in open court this 20th day of April 2015 at Laoag City,
IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Most


Honorable Court, respectfully offers the following documentary
exhibits of the petitioner:

Exhibit “A” – Certificate of Marriage;

Purpose: To prove that the petitioner is married to the


respondent and as part of the testimony of Petitioner;

Exhibit “B” – Birth Certificate of ROSEMARIE GASPAR;

Purpose: To prove the fact of the birth of their first child and as
part of the testimony of the Petitioner;

Exhibit “C”- Birth Certificate of RHEA GASPAR;

Purpose: To prove the fact of the birth of their second child and
as part of the testimony of Petitioner;

Exhibit “D”- Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor General;

Purpose: To prove that the Solicitor General has entered his


appearance;
Exhibit “D-1” – The delegation of the Provincial Prosecutor by
the Solicitor General;

Purpose: To prove that the Provincial Prosecutor has been duly


deputized by the Solicitor General to appear in the above-cited case;

Exhibits “E” to “E-14”- Psychological Evaluation Report;

Exhibit “E-15”- Signature of AUREA LUCAS (psychologist);

Common Purpose: To prove that psychological evaluation and


testing had been conducted by AUREA LUCAS, a psychologist by
profession, upon the person of the petitioner; that after a series of
psychological test, personal interview and collateral information, it
was found out that the respondent prior to and at the time of the
celebration of her marriage to the petitioner, is psychologically
incapacitated in fulfilling her marital obligations on the account of
grave, deeply rooted and incurable NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY
DISORDER WITH AVOIDANT PERSONALITY FEATURES, and as
part of the testimony of Aurea Lucas.

Exhibit “F”- Letter Invitation to respondent Richard Gaspar;

Exhibit “F-1”- Registry Receipt No. 1123;

Exhibit “F-2”- registry Return Receipt Card;

Common Purpose: To prove that respondent was invited for


psychological testing by Ms. Aurea Lucas but has failed to come and
as part of the testimony of Ms. Lucas.

WHEREFORE, with formal offer of the foregoing exhibits for the


purposes for which they are offered, and with the testimonies of the
petitioner and his witnesses, and praying for their admission by the
Most Honorable Court, the petitioner respectfully rests its case.

Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines. May 14, 2015.


ROWELL CALMA
Counsel for the Petitioner
Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

NOTICE

THE CLERK OF THE COURT


RTC-Branch 11
Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing formal offer of evidence, the


corresponding exhibits duly attached to the record, immediately upon
receipt hereof forthe consideration and approval of the Most
Honorable Court.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished by personal service:

APP KENNETH DOMINGO


OIC Provincial Prosecutor
Marcos Hall of Justice, Laoag City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

Acting on the formal offer of exhibits of the petitioner through


counsel, Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and their sub-markings are
hereby admitted for the purpose for which they offered and as part of
the testimony of the witnesses who identified the same during the
course of the trial.

The case is deemed submitted for resolution.

SO ORDERED.

Given in chambers this 19th day of May 2015 at Laoag City,


IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
(To the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 24, 2015)

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this


Most Honorable Court, most respectfully submits her
Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration dated July
24, 2015, to wit:

That the Motion for Reconsideration seeks to reconsider an


Order of the Most Honorable Court dated June 18, 2015 and
eventually be set aside;

That in opposition thereto, the Order of the Most Honorable


Court dated June 18, 2015 must stand as the said Order is in
consonance with logic and law;

That indeed, the Most Honorable Court was correct in issuing said
Order as could be viewed from the following:

1. That the finding of the Honorable Court in its


Decision, “In this case, considering that a personality
disorder is manifested in a pattern of behavior, self-diagnosis
by the respondent consisting only in his bare denial of the
doctor’s separate diagnoses does not necessarily evoke
credence and cannot trump the clinical findings of experts.In
this case, the court is convinced that the facts alleged in this
petition, the evidence and with the witnesses presented
considered in their totality, satisfactorily establish that the
respondent’s acts amount to enumerate a severe
psychological incapacity which incapacitated him to perform
his essential marital obligations as a husband. …In the case
at bar, the court concurs with the findings of the clinical
psychologist which confirms the gravity, incurability and
judicial antecedence of the respondent’s psychological
incapacity. It was clinically explained supported by
testimonies of the petitioner and collateral informant why the
Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Antisocial Personality
Traits of the respondent is grave enough that it rendered the
marriage broken and beyond repair. The petitioner was able
to provide convincing and believable evidence to accurately
establish the personality disorders of the respondent.”
Rightly, the Honorable Court Ruled that respondent’s
psychological incapacity roots from his extreme
irresponsibility towards his obligations to his wife and to his
children, and is blatant infidelity. What the court allows to be
dissolved are marriages which are unfixable due to one or
both partner’s permanent disability.”

2. The Most Honorable Court properly applied the case of


Azcueta vs. Republic of the Philippines and Court of
Appeals, in the instant case, the court is inclined to grant the
petition. It is wisely stated therein, to wit:

“In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s


psychological incapacity, the court is not demolishing the
foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity
of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted
with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or
assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in
that secret bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of
physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug
independence or addiction, and psychosexual anomaly are
manifestations of a sociopathic personality anomaly. Let it be
noted that in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in
the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning to
indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36
will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.”

That the Most Honorable Court properly applied the Molina


case in ruling that,

“The requisites brought in by the Court in the Molina case


has been sufficiently complied in this case considering the
presence and detailed pronouncement of the petitioner and
his collateral informant during their interview with the
psychologist. Respondent was found to be suffering from
Narcissistic Personality Disorder ( NPD ) with Antisocial
Personality Disorder Traits, a grave, deeply rooted and
incurable condition that enables him to develop traits to the
detriment of her marital relationship. The psychologist was
present and was able to explain well on the personality
disorder of the respondent. This goes well with the necessity
of presenting an expert testimony on the matter, pursuant to
the High Court’s pronouncement, thus:

“Expert testimony should have been presented to


establish the precise cause of private respondent’s
psychological incapacity, if any, in order to show that it
existed at the inception of the marriage. The burden of proof
to show the nullity of the marriage rests upon petitioner. The
Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to
protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous
social institution and marriage as the foundation of the
family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favour of the
validity of the marriage. “ (Hernandez vs Court of Appeals,
320 SCRA 76, December 8, 1999)

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed of this


Honorable Court that the foregoing Comments and Opposition to the
Motion for Reconsideration be considered and the Motion for
Consideration be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted.

Laoag City, Philippines. June 29, 2015.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Counsel for the Petitioner
Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008
IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14
PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012
NOTICE

The Clerk of Court


RTC Branch 11,
Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing Comment/Opposition for the


Motion for Reconsideration immediately upon receipt hereof for the
consideration of the Most Honorable Court.

Thank you.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished by personal service:

APP KENNETH DOMINGO


OIC provincial Prosecutor
Marcos Hall of Justice, LAoag City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, respectfully


states:

1. On June 30, 2015, the undersigned counsel received a copy of


the Decision dated June 18, 2015 granting the petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby
GRANTED as
Judgement is hereby rendered declaring the marriage
contracted by petitioner, Frances Guerrero Gaspar to
respondent, Richard C. Gaspar Solemnized on March 28, 2009,
NULL and VOID pursuant to Article 30 Of the Family Code.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.”

2. The trial court granted the petition and ruled on the existence of
respondent’s psychological incapacity based on the information
imparted by the petitioner, petitioner’s collateral informant and
her expert witness.

3. It is respectfully submitted that contrary to the ruling of the trial


court, petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the
existence of psychological incapacity on the part of the
respondent.
4. In Republic vs. Laila Tanyag San-Jose, the Supreme Court
rules:

Undoubtedly, the doctor’s conclusion is hearsay. It is


“unscientific and unreliable” so this Court declared in Choa v.
Choa where the assessment of the therein party sought to be
declared psychologically incapacitated was based merely in the
information communicated to the doctor by the therein
respondent spouse: .

. . The assessment of the petitioner by Dr. Gauzon wa based


merely on descriptions communicated to him by respondents.
The doctor never conducted any psychological examination of
her. Neither did he ever claim to have done so. In fact, his
Professional Opinion began with the statement “ [I]f what Alfonso
Choa said about his wife Lenny is true, . . .”
xxx xxx xxx

Obviously, Dr. Gauzon had no personal knowledge of the


facts he testified to, as these has merely been relayed to him by
respondent. The former was working on pure suppositions and
second hand information fed to him by one side. Consequently,
his testimony can be dismissed as unscientific and unreliable.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

5. Similarly, the expert opinion was merely based on the


representations made by petitioner and her friend PO1 Aira
Sangalang to establish respondent’s psychological incapacity.
Petitioner’s and that of her friend’s testimonies are self-serving
and are trained with bias. In the absence of sufficient
corroboration, the testimony and findings of the expert witness is
unreliable.

6. Moreover, the behavioral manifestations of respondent’s alleged


personality disorder do not support the existence of
psychological incapacity. In fact, infidelity, irresponsible, loss of
love and abandonment, and other more serious behavior like
physical and verbal abuse per se were not considered as grave
or serious so as to equate to psychological incapacity.

7. The Supreme Court has ruled that psychological incapacity must


be limited to the most serious of cases. Certainly, respondent’s
infidelity, irresponsibility, habitual lying and abandonment do not
constitute the most serious of cases.
8. Under the circumstances, petitioner failed to sufficiently prove
that: (i) there exist a psychological incapacity, (ii) which ante-
dated the marriage; and (iii) is grave, serious and incurable. She,
too, failed to further establish the link of the failure to assume
marital obligations to the alleged personality disorder.

9. Thus, there is no basis for the trial court’s finding that


respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the
essential duties of marriage as provided under Article 36 of the
Family Code.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed


that the decision granting the petition for declaration of nullity be
RECONSIDERED and a new one be issued in its stead DISMISSING
the petition for lack of merit.

Makati City for Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, July 14, 2015.

ISRAEL DELA CRUZ


Solicitor General
Roll No.44957
IBP Lifetime Member No. 08505
MCLE Exemption No. IV-001068, 5-14-13

RENER CAFIRMA
Senior State Solicitor
Roll No. 35338
IBP Lifetime Member No. 07708
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020228

KIDD CASTRO
Senior State Solicitor
Roll of Attorney’s No. 41169
IBP Lifetime Member No. 011302
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009083
NOTICE OF HEARING
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
RTC-First Judicial Region
Branch 11, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Counsel for the Petitioner
Calma Law Office
Gen. Luna Cor. Balintawak Sts.,
2900 Laoag City

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR


Ilocos Norte

Sir:
Please submit the foregoing Motion for the
consideration and approval of this Honorable Court on July 24,
2015 at 8:30 in the morning without appearance and further oral
judgement.

RENER CAFIRMA

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Counsel for the Petitioner
Calma Law Office, Room 205
888 Reality Building
Gen. Luna cor Balintawak Sts.,
2900 Laoag City

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor


Ilocos Norte

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997
Rule on Civil Procedure)

This Motion for Reconsideration is being filed and served by


registered mail due to distance.

RENER CAFIRMA
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

Before the court could issue its ruling on the motion for
reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, the
Petitioner is hereby directed to submit within fifteen (15) days from
receipt hereof to file her comment on the motion for reconsideration
of the Decision dated June 18, 2015.

SO ORDERED.

Given in chambers this 4th day of August 2015 at Laoag City,


IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

For consideration is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the


Office of the Solicitor General of the Decision of this court in the
above-entitled case dated June 18, 2015 granting the petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Frances Guerrero against
Richard Gaspar, anchored on the ground that the petitioner failed to
present sufficient evidence to prove the existence of psychological
incapacity of the respondent. Moreover, the Solicitor General opined
that the expert opinion was merely based on the representations
made by petitioner and her friend PO1 AiraSangalang to establish
respondent’s psychological incapacity. Petitioner’s and her friend’s
testimonies are self-serving and tainted with bias. In the absence of
sufficient corroboration, the testimony and the findings of the expert
witness is unreliable. Furthermore, the behavioral manifestations of
respondents alleged personality disorder do not support the existence
of psychological incapacity considering that infidelity, irresponsibility,
loss of love and abandonment and other more serious behaviors like
physical and verbal abuse are not considered grave or serious so as
to equate to psychological incapacity. The petitioner failed to
establish the link of the failure to assume the essential marital
obligations to the alleged personality disorder.

It is to be noted that the psychologist was duly presented and


cross examination was made by the trial prosecutor. She averred that
she had been the psychologist on record who rendered an expert
opinion to the effect that respondent is suffering from Narcissistic
Personality Disorder with Antisocial Personality Traits.

The psychologist commented that based on the psychologist


tests and clinically in-depth interviews from the petitioner and the
collateral informant, she found out that there is no evidence to
warrant a diagnosis of mental defects or psychological disorder on
petitioner’s part.

On the other hand, respondent exhibits maladaptive behavior


constituting a personality disorder which make him psychologically
incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations and caused
impairment of his marriage with the petitioner. The personality
disorder of the respondent is a severe and enduring pattern of inner
experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the
expectations of the individual’s culture. It is developmental for it
usually begins in childhood or early adolescence. It becomes chronic
and pervasive at early adulthood and persists through life. The
respondent possesses and manifest traits that constitute a so-called
Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Antisocial Personality Traits.

The psychologist explicates that the said personality disorder is


a pervasive pattern of maladaptive thinking, feeling and behaving
because it pervades the whole being of a person and it is
developmental in nature because one acquires it from his
environment. She explains that as a person grows up and develops,
these characteristics and manifestations of disorder are slowly
ingrained in his being to be the basis of his outlook later in life. It is
called narcissistic because people afflicted with it are usually
preoccupied with their self-love and are engrossed in the gratification
of their egoistic whims and caprices. She posits that the respondent
failed to cooperate with his wife in dealing with their marital woes. As
a consequence, he failed to empathize to the needs and feelings of
the petitioner because of the presence of personality disorder as
evidenced by his exploitative nature, sense of entitlement, infidelity
and lack of empathy that warrant a diagnosis which brought severe
strain and anxiety to his wife.

The psychologist likewise imparts that the nature of the


personality disorder of the respondent is grave, incurable and deeply
rooted because it already becomes an integral part of what defines
an individual. It is chronic and will always disrupt all aspects of a
person’s interpersonal relationships.

It is deeply rooted because it started early in life and developed


mentally ingrained in his system. She explains further that an
individual’s personality becomes establish by the time he reaches
early adulthood and by that time, his pattern of behavior will be so
pervasive and so ingrained that it cannot be easily modified.

It is incurable for it has no known medications specifically to


treat such personality disorder. Hence, said person will be unable to
recognize or will not acknowledge that he has such a condition. The
respondent’s pervasive, chronic and maladaptive mental and
behavior patterns shall continue in his lifetime and shall interfere with
his ability to perform his essential marital obligations. Thus, the
marriage of the parties will turn from bad to worse as time goes by.

She makes clear that in summary, the parties were unable to


develop a fruitful and harmonious marital relationship. Instead, they
developed a Partner Relational Problem that is attributable to
respondent’s incurable, deeply-rooted and grave personality disorder
that psychologically incapacitates him to understand and fulfil his
basic marital obligations to the petitioner. She opines that the
marriage of the parties no longer serves its purpose. If their marriage
is allowed to continue, the petitioner would only suffer more.

A petition of this kind under Article 36 of the Family Code shall


specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both
parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the
essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration
of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
celebration. The complete facts should allege the physical
manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at
the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need
not be alleged.It bears stressing that the above requirements were
duly complied with the petitioner. The presentation of the psychologist
with her all out-explanation with respect to the personality disorder of
the respondent with complete or all-embracing facts and exhibits
confirms that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated in
fulfilling his essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration
of marriage although such incapacity became manifests only after
marriage. It is noteworthy also that the petitioner has unequivocally
enumerated and detailed out the unbearable characteristics and
deeds of the respondent during their marriage.

The presentation of the clinical psychologist on the case further


support the petitioner’s petition asserting that the parties developed a
severe Partner Relational Problem brought about by the
manifestation of the respondents characterological flaws that
constitute a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Antisocial
Personality Traits. Evidence in the case at bar were respondent’s
moral fibre being an infidel, disrespectful and immature husband.
Traits which set as an example of personality disorder known to
psychologists that render a person psychologically unfit to assume
and perform the duties of marriage.

Moreover, these are the qualities which make him unable to


comply with the essential marital obligations embraced by Article 68
to 71of the Family Code. Article 68 in particular, enjoins the spouses
to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support.

It is worthy to note that during the proceedings, it was stressed


that respondent is an irresponsible and unmindful husband as he
neglected the feeling of his wife by engaging into illicit affair with
different women and by perpetuating his horrendous character.
Respondent exhibited also his immaturity brought by his unfounded
failure to communicate with petitioner, aside from the economic and
emotional abuses he inflicted on her. Moreover, he abandoned his
wife and their children and eloped with another woman. These
qualities makes it impossible to see how respondent would be able to
execute or perform the basic tenets of married life of a husband and
wife anchored on love, fidelity, respect and trust. Marriage is not just
about physical connection but involves an intertwining personalities
that is within the confine of the law and the church.

The sanctity of marriage needs to be protected and obeyed as


carved in no other else than the law of the land. However, such
should not be adhered to all the time especially when one of the
contracting party to the marriage is unconscious of his/her
constitutional and civil obligations to his/her spouse to the extent that
living or staying with one another will only create further
pandemonium and total disrespect. It is right to let the parties be
accorded their separate ways/freedom from the bondage of a failed
marriage that has been ruined from the very beginning and was not
able to recuperate despite efforts to make conciliation as a
consequence of having one of the parties suffering from
psychological disorder that incapacitates him to execute the marital
obligations required by law.

In this case, the court no matter how it greatly deals to keep its
grasp to preserve the marriage of petitioner and respondent, their
matrimony will inescapably incline to annihilate because its objectives
has been constantly crushed by the respondents.

It has been said in several cases that in determining whether a


party to a marriage is psychologically incapacitated in accordance
with Article 36 of the Family Code, it is the trial court that should
determine on a case-to-case basis guided by experience, the findings
of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines and by
decisions of church tribunals. Furthermore, each case must be
judged, not on a basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
generalization but according to its own facts.

As enunciated by the Supreme Court in case of Yambao versus


Republic of the Philippines and Yambao, the tenet that the factual
milieu of each case must be decided based on its own facts.

The mantra that every court should observe the rigid conformity
to the strict standards set in the Republic versus Court of Appeals
and Molina could not be adhered absolutely. In Antonio versus
Reyes, the Supreme Court observed that notwithstanding the
guidelines laid down in Molina case, there was a need to emphasize
other perspectives as well as that which should govern the disposition
of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36.

Moreover, the High Court articulated in the case of Ting versus


Velez-Ting citing the Te versus Te case, to wit; “We said that instead
of serving as a guideline, Molina unintentionally became a
straightjacket, forcing all cases involving psychological incapacity to
fit into and be bound by it, which is not only contrary to the intention
of the law but unrealistic as well as because, with respect to
psychological incapacity, no case can be considered as on “all fours”
with another.”

There is no cogent reason to disturb the court’s findings for it


had a first-hand analysis of the witnesses’ deportment. It applied its
findings of psychological incapacity based on existing jurisprudence
and the law itself which gave this court enough latitude to define what
constitutes psychological incapacity. The court’s evaluation of the
testimonies and evidence of the petitioner and her witnesses and its
findings as to the existence of respondent’s psychological incapacity
should remain undisturbed. Clearly, the court has sufficiently
established in the Decision relative jurisprudence that substantiates
its argument.

Thus, the court finds the Motion for Reconsideration to be


devoid of merit. The totality of the evidences presented in this case
more particularly the efficient and detailed testimony of the petitioner,
the psychologist and the collateral informant has convinced the court
that respondent Richard Gaspar is psychologically incapacitated to
such extent that he lacks awareness and understanding of the
essential obligations of marriage that he should assume as a
husband to his wife or have known it but wanting to assume and as a
father to their children.

Wherefore, premises considered, the court DENIES the Motion


for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Upon finality of this Order, a copy shall be furnished each to the
Office the Civil Registrar of Vintar, IlocosNorte where the marriage
was solemnized and the National Census and Statistics Office,
Manila for their appropriate action consistent with this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Given in chambers this 26th day of October 2015 at Laoag City,


IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ
Presiding Judge

Copy furnished:
1. Atty. Rowell Calma
2. Frances Guerrero
3. Richard Gaspar
4. Civil Registrar, Vintar, IlocosNorte
5. National Statistics Office, Manila
6. Provincial Prosecutor of IlocosNorte
7. Solicitor General

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR,


Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-
13

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION


OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
RICHARD C. GASPAR,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF APPEAL

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, to this


Honorable Court, hereby gives notice that it is appealing this
Honorabl Court’s Order dated October 26, 2015, copy of which was
received by the OSG on November 9, 2015 to the Honorable Court of
Appeals on both questions of fact and law.

Accordingly, it is respectfully prayed that the entire record of the


case be forwarded to the Court of Appeals.

Makati for Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. November 18, 2015.

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City
docket@osg.gov.ph

ISRAEL DELA CRUZ


Solicitor General
Roll No.44957
IBP Lifetime Member No. 08505
MCLE Exemption No. IV-001068, 5-14-13
RENER CAFIRMA
Senior State Solicitor
(Officer-in-Charge)
Roll No. 35338
IBP Lifetime Member No. 07708
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020228

KIDD CASTRO
Senior State Solicitor
Roll No. 41169
IBP Lifetime Member No. 011302
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009083

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA


Counsel for the Petitioner
Calma Law Office, Room 205
888 Reality Building
Gen. Luna cor Balintawak Sts.,
2900 Laoag City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997
Rule on Civil Procedure)

This Motion for Reconsideration is being filed and served by


registered mail due to distance.

RENER CAFIRMA
(Senior State Solicitor)