REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SAN JUAN CITY, BRANCH _______


MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA OBONG,
Petitioner, JDRC Case No. ___________
For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage
- versus -

VINCE PAULO D. OBONG,
Respondent.
X-------------------------------------------------X


PETITION

Petitioner, MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA OBONG, by counsel,
respectfully alleges:

1. Petitioner, MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA OBONG, is a Filipino, of
legal age, with residence at #4673 Oriole Extension, New Prodon
Subdivision, Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela City; respondent is
likewise a Filipino, of legal age, with residence at 500 Lt. Artiaga
Street, City of San Juan Metro Manila, where he may be served with
summons and other legal processes.

2. The parties were married on January 19, 2004 before Rev. Sergio S.
Pangan, at City Hall, Manila. (A copy of the Marriage Contract is
attached hereto and made integral part hereof as Annex A.)

3. One (1) legitimate child was born out of their union namely:
LOUISSE ISABELLI VILLARTA OBONG, born on May 20, 2004.
(A copy of her Certificate of Live birth is attached hereto and made an
integral part hereof as Annex B.)

4. No properties were acquired by the parties during the marriage; nor
were any debts incurred by the parties.

5. The parties met each other in an internet chat room in March 2003.
They met, physically, two months later when they started dating two
or three times a week.

5.1 Petitioners family reacted very positively and delightfully
when they learned that someone was romantically interested in
her and looked forward to meeting him. They were so pleased
that an able-bodied man was interested in their daughter
despite her disability. Her entire family, welcomed him with
open arms.

5.2 Petitioner had suffered a spinal cord injury which left her
paralyzed from the waist down after a vehicular accident when
she was 15 years old.

6. It was a short courtship. They were engaged by December 2003, even
though petitioner had not met respondents family as he never sought
to introduce them.

6.1 Deeply in love, petitioner proposed to respondent the idea of
them having their own baby because she was sure that she loved him
very much and thought it was perfect to have a family with him.

6.2 They decided to consult and OB-GYN if indeed it would be
physically dangerous for her to bear a child. The doctor informed
them that it was safe for petitioner to bear a child. By August, she was
pregnant.

6.3 Then petitioner proposed to respondent in December 2003 that
they might as well get married because they were about to have a
baby. He agreed. She and her sister-in-law (who had friends working
in the city hall) took care of all the legal requirements. The wedding
was set for 19 January 2004.

7. A day of two before their wedding day, petitioner tried to reach
respondent numerous times to coordinate the plans with him for the
actual wedding. But he never responded.

8. Respondent only reacted around 1 a.m. of January 19, the actual
wedding date. Instead of an excited groom-to-be, he taunted her with:
Ano ka ba?! Ano ba ang problema mo? She asked him why he was
not answering her texts and calls and if they were going to push
through with the wedding. He said, yes, the wedding will take place,
but no apology was given for not responding to her frantic calls and
text messages earlier.

8.1 Respondent told petitioner he would pick her up in the morning.
He did, but was 30-60 minutes late. Before they got out of the car at
the City Hall, they talked about wedding expenses: fees for the
wedding arrangements and the small reception after for the few
witnesses and guests who were friends of hers. Because he said he
was short of cash, she gave him money to pay for City Hall fees and
their reception.

8.2 Petitioner and respondent were married in the City Hall of Manila
followed with a reception at a Manila restaurant with only her friends
in attendance. After the celebration, the newlyweds went back to their
respective homes - she, to her parents home and he, to his. Since she
was already pregnant, there was no honeymoon.

9. The marriage never existed.

9.1 Respondent is immature. He was a Mamas boy it did not
matter if he did not see his new bride for a long time as long as
he was able to attend to his mothers orders. It was usual for his
mother to text him a message, even telling him to come back
home because it was about to strike midnight, and it was late
already. His response was to immediately jump off on his feet
and bid his spouse goodbye.

9.2 Respondent did not love and respect petitioner. Although they
were already married, he never made an effort to meet his
family. What was worse was that he disappeared for long
periods of time and seemed not to have time for her. Whenever
he did deign to visit her, he would visit her very late and left
very early. He refused her sex many times, because according
to him, he was tired from work.

9.3 Respondent did not support petitioner. He rarely fulfilled his
promises. When she was in labor and about to give birth, he
promised that he would be around but he was nowhere to be
found.

9.3.1 Because he was always out of reach, he was not around
when she gave birth to their child on 20 May 2004.

9.4 Respondent failed to support his child. He never took interest in
their daughter never contributed even for the simplest needs
like diapers, vaccination, or milk. For the preparation of their
daughters christening, he agreed to take charge of the
invitations. She checked on him regularly regarding the
invitations and both agreed that she would pick them up a week
before the baptism. On the appointed day, he told her to call
him up at 1:30 p.m.

9.4.1 Then he suddenly called, telling her not to pick up the
invitations because these were not ready. Upset, she hung
up. Thereafter, he never contacted her or even tried to
update her on how the preparations were going.

9.4.2 The night before the baptism, she called him just to
confirm if he were going to attend the baptism. He said,
yes, and for them to just meet in church. The next
morning when she and her family arrived, he was already
there and participated in the christening. Then they all
went to her parents house for a little gathering. While
there, even with a lot of guests, he left the gathering as if
he were not the father of the newly christened baby.

9.4.3 After their babys christening in September 2004, he
stopped visiting them. He never made an effort to see
how their daughter was doing. When their daughter was
8 months old, he still had not shown up. When she was
finally able to talk to him, all he could say was to take
good care of their child. Ever since she was born, even
during special occasions like Christmas and most
specially their daughters birthday, he never took the
initiative to at least greet the little girl. He even removed
his daughters Friendster account from his account,
which was the easiest way for him to contact or be
updated about her. When she told him that their daughter
wanted to see him, he said he had a very busy
schedule.

9.5 Respondent was unfaithful to petitioner. He was always
unavailable. To add insult to injury, he brought his mistress to
visit her. He had the audacity to post his pictures with his
mistress and her own daughter showing how happy and proud
he is with his second family.

9.5.1 She tried to contact him constantly by texting messages
(which he ignored), by calling his house (but he was
never home), by calling his mobile (which was never
answered), and by calling his office (to which the reply
was that he was either busy, not yet in or he had just left).

9.5.2 One night, petitioner decided to proceed to his house in
San Juan. She went with her brother. When they arrived
in front of the gate, he arrived as well, driving his car.
Her brother invited him to talk privately. He transferred
to their car, parked somewhere, and they talked privately.
After a moment of silence she started to ask him why he
was not visiting them anymore and he promised he
would. Several days passed after their conversation and
still he had not shown up nor contacted her.

9.5.3 She asked her sister-in-law to call his office thinking that
maybe his officemates would be more receptive with a
different caller and may even give the phone to him. His
officemate said respondent did not come to work to make
preparations for his wedding to his girlfriend, who was
his officemate. She contacted his best friend, Kenneth,
and asked if the information were true and his best friend
reluctantly said, yes, indeed, it was true.

9.5.4 In January 2005, petitioner wrote a letter to respondents
mother informing her about their relationship and their
daughter and simply requesting them to acknowledge his
daughter. She attached pictures of her daughter with the
letter.

9.5.5 Days after she confronted his best friend, petitioner
found out that respondents old number already belonged
to respondents wife, a certain Emma.

9.5.6 Upset with this development, she called his best friend to
ask if respondent could contact her. Respondent
contacted her the next night telling her that he wanted to
break up with her, that he loves his mistress, and he also
told her that his mother already received her letter, so
there was nothing to hide anymore.

9.5.7 Two months later, respondent and his mistress visited her
daughter. Her family requested respondent not to bring
his mistresss when he visited, but that he was welcome to
see his daughter any time. They never saw him again.

9.6. Respondents lack of love, respect, fidelity and support for petitioner
and their child affected their communication, time spent together, as
well as their intimacy. They never even lived together as husband
wife.
10. Psychological evaluations, performed by resident Psychologists of St.
Lukes Medical Center, Quezon City namely Dr. Jordan A. Tapales and
Dr. Warren C. Placido, reveal that petitioner is suffering from a Self-
Defeating Personality Disorder; while respondent is inferred to be
suffering from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with marked
Dependent features.
10.1. Petitioners personality disorder explains why she proposed to her
boyfriend that they have a baby, why she proposed marriage when
she got pregnant, and why she would still be surprised when he
made his disappearing acts after their daughter was born.

10.2. Petitioners personality disorder explains why she tolerated her
spouses disappearing acts after their daughter was born.

10.3. Petitioners self defeating features were manifested by her:
10.3.1. Helplessness, naivety, gullibility, cynicism, proneness to
depression, and resignation to inevitable disappointments of
life (she kept on texting and calling her philandering spouse
to pay her and her daughter a visit).

10.3.2. Extremely low self-esteem. She seems confused or uncertain
about her own identity, thus, not inclined to feel deserving,
to promote herself well. There are indications that she lacks
insight into the true nature or degree of her current
problems. This lack of insight fosters a potential for
hysterical (proposed to her boyfriend about having a baby,
then proposed marriage when she got pregnant),
dissociative, or somatic reactions.

10.3.3. She gains her self-esteem from other people. An aggrieved
individual, she will continually be the victim. She routinely
takes the attention off herself so that the important people in
her life take advantage of her good nature.

10.3.4. Finding meaning in laboring to make others lives better,
drawn to people in pain and in need, whose suffering and
hardship she will do all she can to alleviate. She would labor
long and hard (e.g. spent for all the wedding expenses, her
daughters maintenance needs, etc.) happy to lose sight of
herself in her helpfulness to a cause of a person.

10.4. One has to go back to her early childhood in order to understand the
root cause of her poor emotional development. Her father was a
loving father, a good provide, and hot-tempered while her mother
was loving, family oriented, and too emotional. The youngest
child in a brood of eight, she would get traumatized when her
brother got hooked on drugs. Then an almost fatal accident
occurred that left her paralyzed from the waist down. She solved
problems basically on her own, never complained, and just obeyed.
The one time she made a decision on her won was when she gave
herself to her manipulative, abusive boyfriend who was able
bodied and handsome.

11. The respondent, as stated, suffers from a Narcissistic Personality
Disorder with marked dependent features.

11.1. The Diagnostic Criteria for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder
from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
4
th
edition (DSM-IV-TR, 2000 p.717) are:
(a-1.) Has a grandiose sense of self importance (e.g. got paraplegic
girlfriend pregnant, married her, then abandoned her and
moved in with his mistress);
(a-2.) Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power,
brilliance, beauty or ideal love (e.g. brought his mistress
home to meet his wife);
(a-3.) Believes he is special and unique and can only be
understood by, or should associate with, other special or
high status people (e.g. his pay check was only meant for
him);
(a-4.) Requires excessive admiration (e.g. must be given priority in
everything as his needs/requests are more important than
everyone elses);
(a-5.) Has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with
his expectations ( e.g. to his bride-tobe that he was very
short of cash for their wedding, so let her pay for the
wedding the reception expenses);
(a-6.) Is interpersonally exploitative (e.g. after giving 5k for the
birth of his daughter, left all other hospital and maintenance
expenses for his wifes account);
(a-7.) Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the
feelings and needs of others (e.g. did not care how spouse
felt when he was unavailable to her when she gave birth to
their daughter);
(a-8.) Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors and attitudes (e.g. goes to
great lengths to make sure he gets what he wants others
needs are only secondary to his).

11.2. The root cause of his Narcissistic Personality Disorder stems
from the trauma of having a high profile father (a basketball player
and vice-mayor) and an emotionally fragile mother who nearly had
a nervous breakdown. To cope, he learned to be very self-centered,
interpersonally exploitative, manipulative, entitled to have whatever
he wants.

11.3. Respondents marked Dependent features were manifested by: his
difficulty in making everyday decisions without an excessive
amount of advice and reassurance from others (e.g. consented to
impregnate his girlfriend to marry her, then abandoned her, etc.);
his need for others to assume responsibility for most major areas of
his/her life (e.g. let his bride-to-be spend for their wedding, their
babys christening and other maintenance needs of their daughter);
his difficulty in expressing disagreement with others because of fear
of loss of support or approval (e.g. never introduced his wife to his
parents); his difficulty in initiating projects or doing things on his
own because of a lack of self-confidence in judgment or abilities
(e.g. could not tell his parents that he got married, has a daughter);
and his going to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance to do things
that are unpleasant (e.g. even as a married man, was at his mothers
beck and call).

12. The parties acts and omissions indicate that they failed to provide each
other with love, companionship, fidelity, respects, mutual help, support
and care required by law. Respondent, particularly, also failed to provide
love, care and support for his daughter.

13. The parties inability to discharge the essential obligations of marriage is
grave and incurable, as the acts constituting the same are habitual,
persistent, unchanging and of enduring nature.

14. The failure and/or inability of the parties to perform the essential marital
obligations as shown in the foregoing paragraphs most certainly render
the marriage between the parties null and void on the ground of their
psychological incapacity under the provisions of Article 36 of the Family
Code.

15. To deliver her from the ordeal of a marriage that only proved to be a
farce and which had brought her nothing but pain and grief and to free
from the eternal embarrassment and inequity of being bound by marriage
to a husband who was completely abandoned his obligations to his
family, petitioner was constrained to seek this ultimate recourse of
annulment.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner prays that immediately
after the filing of the Petition, the Honorable Court order respondent to pay
support pendent lite in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND [P20,000.00]
PESOS a month, while this case is pending.
Thereafter, and after due hearing, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable
Court render judgment as follows:
1. Declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void
ab initio under the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code of the
Philippines.
2. Confirming permanent custody of the minor child, LOUISSE ISABELLI
VILLARTA OBONG in petitioner.
3. Holding that petitioner shall henceforth revert to and use her maiden
name MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA
4. Adjudicating all other legal effects of the decree of nullity of marriage.
Petitioner prays for such other relief just and equitable in the premises.
City of Paranaque for City of San Juan, 28 July 2014.








RONN ROBBY D. ROSALES
Counsel for Petitioner
412 Gemini Street, Annex 45
Better Living, Paranaque City
PTR No. 6346588, 01-25-14, Manila
IBP No. 737133, 01-10-14, Makati
City
Attorneys Roll No. 31018
MCLE No.:II-00130
VERIFICATIONAND CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM
SHOPPING

I, MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA OBONG of legal age, residing at 4673
Oriole Extension, New Prodon Subdivision, Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela,
after having sworn to by law hereby depose and state under oath that:
1. I have ceased the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
2. The allegations contained herein are true and correct of my own
knowledge;
3. I have not commenced any other action or proceedings involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency; to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; and that, if I
should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different
Division thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. I undertake to promptly
inform this Honorable Court within five (5) days therefrom.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto signed this Verification this 25th day of
July 2014, in Makati City, Philippines.



SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 25th day of July 2014 at
Makati City affiant exhibiting to me her Community Tax Certificate No.
11986199 issued on 8 January 2014 in Valenzuela City.



Doc. No. ____;
Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2014

MIKA ISABLE P. VILLARTA OBONG
Affiant
MYKA T. ORBIN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Until December 31, 2014
PTR No. 458795, 01-25-14, Manila
IBP No. 685243, 01-10-14, Makati
City
Attorneys Roll No. 31018
MCLE No.:II-00130
EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL
[Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court]

PETITIONER, by counsel, submits that the foregoing Petition is
being served to the adverse party by registered mail due to lack of time and
owing to heavy workload of the liaison officer of the undersigned lawyer.


RONN ROBBY D. ROSALES


Copy Furnished:

CREDO NUBLA FRANCISCO AND JOSE
Counsel for Respondent
CVCLAW Center 11
th
Avenue cor. 39
th
Street Bonifacio Triangle,
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City, Metro Manila