REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH ____
CITY OF MANILA

Maria Lyn Dela Ganar Babiera,

Petitioner

-versus- Civil Case No. _______________________

For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
under Art. 36 of Family Code
Francis Miguel Tanyag Babiera,
Respondent
x------------------------------------------x

PETITION
COMES NOW petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and to this Honorable
Court, respectfully alleges:

1. That petitioner Maria Lyn Dela Ganar Babiera is of legal age, married. Filipino
and resident of 1256 Miguelin Street Sampaloc, Manila;

2. That respondent Francis Miguel Tanyag Babiera is likewise of legal age, married,
Filipino and presently residing at 1256 Miguelin Street Sampaloc, Manila;

3. That petitioner and respondent celebrated their marriage on April 1, 2009

before the Minor Basilica of Saint Lorenzo Ruiz and formerly known as Our Lady
of the Most Holy Rosary Parish, located in the District of Binondo, Manila,
certified true copy of their Marriage Certificate is attached and made integral
part hereof as Annex “A”;

4. That petitioner and respondent have two children. They have no written
agreement executed before the marriage to govern their property relations nor
have any community property acquired during their marriage. They have no
debts;

5. That petitioner met the respondent sometime in 2003 in the City of Manila.
Their romance culminated in a marriage before the priest of Binondo Church;

6. That in a short span of time they have been together, this is the time which the
petitioner describes as a period where the respondent’s instability, psychology
or otherwise, showed up;

7. That other instances, wherein such instability could be reasonably inferred are
as follows:

a. After their marriage, respondent gave up his job at Intelligence Surveillance

Target Acquisition Reconnaissance (ISTAR) Inc. as General Manager without
justifiable reason;

b. That petitioner tried to explain to him that it was his responsibility to support
her but respondent would ignore and shout at her, making the petitioner the
breadwinner of the family;

c. That the respondent is a compulsive gambler;

d. He is a womanizer;

e. He resorts to drug and alcohol abuse during their cohabitation;

f. That the respondent does not want to have a child with the petitioner because
according to him it will just cause burden for him;

g. That parties would fight even for the smallest things through not due to the
fault of the petitioner, and frequently, the respondent would always apologize to
the petitioner, but later on, he will repeat his quarrelsome and troublesome
ways;

h. He prefers to hang out with friends and with his flings, side-chicks instead of
being with the petitioner;

8. That during their honeymoon period, things were running smoothly between
them, but not on the succeeding week, when the respondent’s instability
started to manifest clearly to the petitioner. Their relationship lasted sometime
in 2013;

9. That some other manifestations of the psychological and emotional

disturbances on the part of the respondent can be cited as follows:

a. That there were many times when the respondent never even kissed the
petitioner. Respondent would not even look at her whenever they spoke to each
other. She was always the one, who holds or hugs him so that they may become
closer to each other but every time she tries to be closer to him, he simply had
to always turn his back at her. This is causing so much unbearable emotional
and psychological pain on the part of the petitioner;

b. That petitioner told the respondent that they should discuss what went wrong
between them and hopefully they could work it out again. The petitioner
verbalized all the things she had noticed and felt, knowing that everything
works out when there is an open communication. She told him about the lack of
passion, respect and romance in their relationship. The respondent just ignored
her pleas;

c. That respondent began hurting the petitioner physically by throwing things on

her and shoving her around;

d. That respondent did not stop gambling and using alcohol and drugs;

e. The respondent abandoned the petitioner and left to be with another woman.
Since January 2013, the respondent did not return nor tried to communicate
with the petitioner. The petition on several instances, tried to reach the
respondent through his relatives and friends but to no avail.

10. That the petitioner already gave up on the respondent after trying to give all
her efforts just to save the marriage to a man who, as shown in the foregoing, is
not cognitive to and psychologically incapable of performing, his basic marital
covenants to herein petitioner;

11. That further, respondent’s psychological incapacity from all indications

appears to have been manifesting all the time of the celebration of marriage.
Although said manifestations were not then perceived, the root cause shall be
proved to such extent that respondent could not have known the obligations he
was to fulfill or knowing them could not have validly performed them. It is such
incapacity that the respondent was unable to assume his marital obligations;
12. That the respondent’s incapacity to fulfill his essential marital obligations
appear to be grave, incurable and deeply ingrained, thus; warranting the
issuance of the Decree of Nullity of petitioner’s marriage with the respondent;

13. That finally, the petitioner has therefore no other recourse but to seek
judicial relief. The prospects or possibility of respondent to reform and assume
his essential marital obligations is a remote possibility, if not a hopeless
expectancy.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, after trial, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court
rendered judgement:

1. Declaring the marriage entered into by the parties as NULL and VOID on the
ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent;

2. Ordering the Local Civil Registry and the Philippine Statistics Authority to cancel
in their respective Books of Marriages, the marriage between the petitioner and
the respondent.

Petitioner prays for such other relief she may be entitled to in the premises.

City of Manila, March 9, 2020.

LEGAYADA ASSOCIATE LAW OFFICES

By:
__________________________________
Atty. Erwin B. Legayada
Commission Serial No. 12345
Until December 31, 2030
Roll of Attorney 1234569
IBP. No. 1234/January 1, 2019/Manila
P.T.R. No. 1235/January 1, 2020
Roll No. 1234