PETITION

PETITIONER x x x, by counsel, respectfully states:

1.
Petitioner is xxx years old, born on xxx, old and a
resident of xxx City.

Petitioner is a graduate of Bachelor of Science in xxx from

the xxx. He had completed various relevant training in his
field that catapulted him to the coveted position of Chief
Mate at a very young age. Petitioner was the ship captain at
the age of xxx years of the xxx, where he took of his training
in his field.
Attached as Annex A hereof is a copy of the Bio-Data of the
petitioner for ready reference.
2.
The respondent xxx is xxx years old, born on xxx, and
a resident of xxx City, where she may be served with
summons for the instant case.
Respondent finished xxx at a school in xxx. While petitioner
knew that respondent was employed with xxx from xxx to
xxx, he has no knowledge of respondents present
employment, if any.
3.
Petitioner has been employed at the xxx Corporation
from xxx until present. He was a Deck Cadet from xxx to
xxx; Third Mate from xxx to xxx; Third/Second Mate from xxx
to xxx; Second Mate / Chief Mate from xxx to xxx; and Chief
Mate from xxx to xxx. He holds the record of being the
youngest ship captain at a young age of xxx years old of the
xxx Corporation.

4.
Petitioner had a son out of wedlock, during his bachelor
years. The son is xxx, xxx years old, born on xxx, xxx grade
pupil. Petitioner has been the one providing financial support
to xxx through remittances deposited in a bank.

Attached as Annex B is a copy of the Certificate of Live

Birth of xxx.
5.
Petitioner and respondent first met sometime in xxx.
They initially became text mates from xxx to xxx of that year
when one of Petitioners college classmates gave him
Respondents mobile number. However, they eventually lost
contact starting xxx because Petitioner had to undergo a
seaman-training course at the xxx Institute xxx where
mobile phones are not allowed while in the duration of the
training. By xxx, Petitioner was able to successfully finish his
training course and resumed his communication with the
Respondent. In the same month of xxx, Petitioner and
respondent met for the very first time in xxx and engaged in
pre-marital sex on the same day.

6.
Since then, petitioner and respondent saw each other
once every week. They were already sweethearts when
petitioner boarded a vessel as Desk Cadet in xxx for his first
work contract. Their relationship continued via long distance,
with constant calls and emails. In xxx, petitioner had his
vacation in the Philippines. It was then when he introduced
the respondent to his family. The latter warmly accepted the
respondent.

7.
In xxx, respondent started to stay at the house of the
petitioner, with petitioners parents and siblings. Petitioners
siblings started to notice that petitioner and respondent
often engaged in verbal arguments over petty matters. They
would shout at each other and no one would want to back
off. Petitioner expected the respondent to give in during
fights but respondent would even get angrier than him, not
wanting to lower her voice.

8.
Moreover, Petitioner discovered that Respondent is the
dominant and controlling type. She wanted things her way
and would be very angry when her wants are not granted.
Petitioner realized that he and respondent are incompatible
to each other. He already wanted to separate from her but

he could not do so when she broke the news that she was
already pregnant with their child.

9.
Petitioner and respondent eventually got marriage to
each other on xxx, despite the uncertainties already
entertained in the mind of the petitioner, because petitioner
had asked the permission of the respondents mother for the
said marriage. After the nuptial, the couple continued to
establish their dwelling place at the house of Petitioners
parents.
Attached as Annex C hereof is a copy of the
Certificate of Marriage of the parties.

10. While living together as husband and wife, petitioner

found out that respondent was a very jealous and suspicious
woman. Whenever Petitioner arrived home from his training,
Respondent would check his belongings, especially his
mobile phone, for any evidence of a probable infidelity on his
part. She suspected him of having an illicit affair with his
former girlfriends, particularly with the one whom he had
sired a child out of wedlock. While petitioner admitted that
he had a son prior to meeting the respondent and he had
flings before; he no longer engaged in such flings after his
wedding with the respondent. However, respondent did not
believe the petitioner and she grew all the more suspicious
of his actions, accusing him of infidelity even if she has no
concrete basis at all.

11.
Despite the fact that their marital relationship was
already in shambles as they continue to engage in heated
argumentation and fights, the supposed child of the parties,
xxx was born on xxx.
Attached as Annex D hereof is a copy of the Certificate of
Live Birth of xxx.

12.
Petitioner observed the distance that developed
between him and xxx.
At first his attributed the said
distance due to his overseas employment. Petitioner was
often told that the features of xxx are starkly different from
his. Finally, he decided to subject xxx and himself to DNA to
ascertain his paternity of the said child.
The differences in the facial features of the petitioner and
Xxx Xxx are readily visible in the attached picture of the
petitioner and xxx taken recently in xxx (Annex E hereof).

13.
Much to the petitioners dismay, the DNA result
conducted on Xxx Xxx and himself shows that xxx is not the
biological father of xxx.
Attached as Annex F hereof is a copy of the
abovereferred DNA Result conducted by the xxx on xxx.

14. Prior to the birth of xxx, petitioner again boarded a

vessel with a position of Third Mate from xxx to xxx for his
second work contract. This time, respondent started to nag
him about financial support to the point that his work on
board was already being affected. She demanded more
money from the petitioner and was questioning the support
he is giving for his siblings education. Petitioner argued that
prior to getting married; he had already cleared this with the
respondent. He told her that he will still support his siblings
who sacrificed their education for him to graduate first so
that he can have a job. Supporting them was his way to pay
them back for their sacrifices. However, respondent took this
negatively and would demand more financial support even if
petitioner was also giving to her family whenever needed.
Respondent would even pick up a fight with Petitioners
youngest sibling with regards the financial remittances.
Despite the objection of the respondent, petitioner continued
to finance the education of his siblings to compensate them
for their sacrifices they underwent for his education.

15. Petitioner has been regularly sending adequate amount

of monetary remittances to the respondent. His monthly

financial allocations were initially amounting to PHP xxx,

until it increased to PHP xxx. At present, he is sending PHP
xxx to the respondent and xxx on a monthly basis. Despite
these amounts, respondent is not yet satisfied and even
demanded more. She once told the Petitioner that she must
receive PHP xxxx when he is a third mate, PHP xxx as second
mate, PHP xxx as chief mate and PHP xxx as captain.

16. When Petitioner boarded the vessel with a position of

Third Mate, promoted to Second Mate, from xxx to xxx, for
his third work contract, Respondent transferred location to
xxx because she did not want to live with his parents and
siblings. In the same year, respondent asked PHP xxx from
the petitioner supposedly for the heart operation of xxx. The
following year, she asked PHP xxx from him for follow-up
operation of the child xxx. Petitioner had incurred debts just
to raise such amount in order to improve the health
condition of the child xxx. Later on, however, Petitioner
inquired at the xxx Hospital with regards the childs record
and was shocked to learn that no operations were performed
for the child. In fact, the child has no record of consultation
on the said hospital. It was then when Petitioner started to
ask the respondent where his hard-earned income was spent
on through the years.

17. By hindsight, petitioner feels having gravely victimized

by the respondent thru huge faked hospitalizations of the
child xxx, who was subsequently tested as not belonging to
the petitioner.

18. When Petitioner took his vacation in the Philippines in

xxx, he no longer stayed with the respondent in xxx. They
were already separated during this time although he still
visited the child xxx in xxx whenever he had no training in
the shipping company for his second mate examination.
During his visits, the estranged couple still engaged in
sexual intercourse.

19. In xxx Petitioner boarded a vessel as Second Mate,

promoted to Chief Mate, for his fourth work contract. He then
met another woman, named xxx and engaged in an illicit
affair with her. The following year, xxx, Petitioner and xxx
sired a child named xxx, to whom the petitioner also extends
financial support as his child.

20. Petitioner returned for a vacation in the Philippines in

xxx. Petitioner and Respondent were able to find ways to
reconcile to the marriage between the parties another
chance. He thought that the latter would change for the
better but he was just disappointed at her. Petitioner was
then reviewing for his examination as chief mate while
Respondent was questioning the huge amounts he was
paying for the review. She was also demanding so much time
from him amidst the review. To address the complaint of the
respondent, petitioner asked her to leave Xxx and stay with
him at his parents abode so that they could be together
more often.

21. However, their relationship became worse than ever, as

their incompatibilities surfaced out again. They engaged all
the more in heated arguments and fights even at the
presence of his parents and siblings. Petitioner was unable to
sleep due to the extended quarrels with the respondent and
he attended his review classes without sleep. Petitioner lack
peace of mind and concentration he needed for his review.
He temporarily found solace in the company of his male
friends, as they engaged in drinking sessions every night,
every after review for the chief mate examination. When he
arrived home, he was pestered by the angry respondent who
continually nagged him.

22.
Petitioner expected respondent to be caring and
thoughtful towards him, but she failed to look after
Petitioners welfare. She was cold and apathetic towards his
concerns. Respondent could not even prepare merienda for
the petitioner and would require him to prepare his own
merienda. Moreover, respondent continued to be suspicious

of him, constantly checking his belongings upon arrival from

his review classes. Respondent was selfish, jealous and
indifferent. Respondent never cared for the petitioner and
his needs.

22. In the early part of xxx, the couple again engaged in

heated fights when respondent refused to allow the
petitioner to attend the wake of his grandmother in xxx.
Petitioner could not bring respondent along with him in the
wake because his family and relatives strongly disapproved
of her.

23. During heated fights, Respondent would call her parents

and sister in xxx, crying and seeking for sympathy, which
the petitioner hated.

24. Their marital fights became all the more frequent and
intense until Petitioner again boarded his vessel as Chief
Mate for the fifth time on xxx to xxx.

25. While on board, Respondent created a fake Facebook

account of the Petitioner and added most of his friends,
including his co-workers in the vessel. Through the said fake
account, Respondent was communicating with his coworkers, telling them that she and her child was living in a
squatters area and are already settling for rock salt as their
meals (nagdidildil ng asin). Petitioner was infuriated upon
learning this because he was certain that his financial
allocations for the respondent and the child xxx never
waned. He still sends them monetary support on a monthly
basis. Petitioner further gathered that respondent also
accused his parents and siblings of sending her death
threats. This became the last straw of their relationship and
petitioner finally decided that it is all over.

26. Petitioner believes that their relationship is already

beyond repair. Petitioner did everything he could to save his

marriage with the respondent, however, their incompatibility

along with respondents pervasively flawed character had
made it impossible to redeem the relationship. Petitioner
narrated It was in this premise that Petitioner finally decided
to separate from the respondent; hence the filing of this
annulment case.

27. The recent finding by the petitioner that the child xxx is
NOT his biological son further strengthened Petitioners
desire to severe any remaining ties he has with the
respondent who had lied to him all these years that they
were together.

28. The parties do not own any properties, whether real or

personal.

29. The petitioner has engaged the services of the

undersigned counsel, Laserna Cueva-Mercader & Associates
Law Offices for the preparation, filing and prosecution of the
instant case.

30. The petitioner had engaged the services of Dr. xxx,

Clinical Psychologist, for the determination of psychological
evaluation of both parties, who will be presented as an
expert witness in support of the instant petition.

Attached is Annex G is a copy of the Curriculum Vitae of

Dr. xxx, Clinical Psychologist.

31. The psychological tests administered by Dr. xxx on the

petitioner were: Revised Beta Examination II;
Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test; Draw A Person Test;
Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test ; Sachs Sentence
Completion Test Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
I; Hand Test; and Self Analysis.

32. Based on the results of the psychological tests and

interview on the parties and corroborator as well as based on
the background data gathered and marital history of the
parties, the findings of Dr. xxx are reproduced in the
succeeding paragraphs herein below, culled from the Report
of Dr. xxx, M. A., xxx, attached as Annex H hereof, to wit:

After a thorough analysis of the data presented, it is

revealed that the eventual shattering of the conjugal
partnership between xxx and xxx is brought forth by the
psychological
incapacitation
of
the
Petitioner
and
Respondent. They were both governed by a debilitating
psychological conditions, which made them inept to be
actively part of a relationship where mutuality is founded
and required. Their attitude and behavior are all selfcentered in nature that both their strivings are largely
focused to cater their pathological needs and demands.

33. The reported behavioral manifestations of the petitioner

satisfies
the
criteria
of
a
PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE
PERSONALITY
DISORDER
COMORBID
ANTISOCIAL
PERSONALITY DISORDER. This personality disorder caused
the petitioner to be psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential obligations of marriage.

34. Dr. xxx characterized the psychological incapacitation of

the petitioner as follows:

Petitioner is regarded as an egocentric and self-centered

person who upholds a sense of entitlement. This being the
case, he only thinks of himself and anything that is in favor
of him. He looked down on others, degrading another
persons capacity and worth, perceiving them on a lower
stature than he is. During argumentations, Petitioner would
often tell the Respondent, ako ang matalino, top notcher
ako e In return, he feels superior and indomitable when

these are just means to cover up deep-seated inadequacies

and crippling anxiety. Petitioner also has mixed-up priorities
in life. To him, his parents and siblings are more important
than his wife and child. Respondent narrated, tinatakot niya
kaming mag-ina na di daw niya kami susustentuhan, kaya
daw niya kaming kalimutanmas importante sa kaniya ang
kasikatan niya sa family niyamas priority niya ang family
niya kaysa sa amin.

Petitioner is described as an emotionally weak-willed man

who could not directly assert himself to the circumstances
and people around him. From the very start, he has
reservations about marrying Respondent but still pursued
with the wedding when he could have cancelled the
ceremony in the first place. Petitioner narrated, tinuloy ko
po ang kasal kahit ayaw ko na sana, naisip ko na gusto ko na
iatras nag kasalpero dahil nakapagpaalam na sa mga
magulang namin, itinuloy na rin. On most occasions while
inside the marriage, Petitioner was not able to stand as the
real man of the family as he lacks the ability to express
power and dominion over circumstances. He allowed his
parents and siblings to dictate the terms to him. Instead of
being heard as the man, his decisions are typically without
authority and this made him truly incapable of leading the
family. He is always unsure and filled with feelings of
inadequacy.

Petitioner is depicted as a sullen and argumentative person.

He is always on the defensive side of things so much so that
his marital relationship has been bombarded with heated
disputes and fights. Petitioner is described as madaling
magalit, madaldal kapag galit, has a bad temper. On the
onset, he would succumb to existing norms and standards as
these would augment his subjugated disposition and would
probably add quality to his depleted self concept. However,
he internally broods hostile and oppositional feelings which
further pave way to his aggressive tendencies and impulsive
predilection when provoked. He lacked adequate control of
his emotions and would direct them towards the Respondent
and their child. During marital disputes, Petitioner was

expecting the Respondent to give in during fights but

Respondent would even get angrier than him, not wanting to
lower her voice. Petitioner narrated, pag galit ako, nasabay
siya sa init ng ulo, di siya papatalo sa akin.

Petitioner sees himself as misunderstood and unappreciated,

ill-fated and demeaned by others. He feels victimized in his
situation without seeing where his shortcomings lie and his
own share of negative contributions why his situation come
on such ending and unfortunate condition. Instead, he just
believes that others are seemingly unfair and are taking
advantage of him. Petitioner is illustrated as masyadong
mabait, madaling mapaniwala, masyadong maawain
Negativistic as he is, it has always been his way of thinking
that other people never saw his sacrifices. He thinks that he
is receiving lesser appreciation than what he deserves, and
the discontented self-image that he has is blamed towards
the way other people treats him. This makes him all the
more embittered, disgruntled, and disillusioned in their
relationship.

Petitioner manifested vacillating emotional condition

rendering him unstable to display adequate reactions to
relational stimulations. He dithers from being the
acquiescent and contrite type to the impulsive and hostile
type. He was never consistent with the attitude and behavior
he has shown towards the Respondent. At one point, he
would be in his passive stance. Petitioner and Respondent
saw and communicated with each other last xxx. However,
during this time, Petitioner told Respondent, hindi po niya
ipapa-annul ang kasal namin dahil mahal daw niya ako At
another point, he would eventually feel angry to the extent
of threatening the Respondent, even her life. In xxx,
Petitioner blackmailed the Respondent by telling her that he
will spread out her nude photos in his laptop. Respondent
narrated, sa totoo lang po maam, natatakot ako sa mga
banta niya dahil alam kong kaya niyang gawin iyon.
Respondent narrated, I can prove his text messages na
papatayin niya ako, papatayin niya kami

Petitioner is pictured as a man who takes his commitments

lightly. He is emotionally elusive when it comes to his marital
difficulties so much so that he tends to act passively just to
preserve emotional attachment. He may appear conforming
but inwardly he is filled with scorn and contempt for his own
incapacity which he often expressed outwardly by way of
passive-aggression and procrastination. As a result, he
engaged in an illicit affair with another woman. In xxx,
Petitioner boarded a vessel for his fourth work contract. He
then met another woman, named xxx, and engaged in an
illicit affair with her. The following year, xxx, Petitioner and
xxx sired a child.

Petitioner lacked adequate insight towards his pathological

condition. This being the case, he failed to evaluate the
wrongness of his actions and was unable to profit from
experience. He utilized rationalization mechanism and offers
alibis to place himself in the best possible light, despite his
evident shortcomings or failures. He would always put the
blame on the Respondent while defending his impulsive and
self-centered ways by making justifications of his decisions
and actions. He would even highlight his pathetic condition,
being the one who passively honors his financial obligations,
which apparently places him in a positive spotlight. However,
monetary allocations are only part of his responsibilities as a
husband. He may argue that he was making it big and
successful in his career, but he was actually using this as his
scapegoat, allowing his marital relationship to suffer and
emotional bond to really flourish. He was blaming the
Respondent, the situation, and other people, but never
himself.

The personality disorder of the petitioner is a by-product of

the unfavorable experiences and negative exposures he had
during his childhood and adolescent years. On those crucial
times, he was just on his way of establishing the very core of
his person and was just building the permanent foundation
of his personality, serving as the grounds of his current

maladaptive behaviors. Growing up, Petitioner had been

accustomed to obey his parents, along with existing house
rules. This being his childhood conditioning, he had learned
the value of obedience and compliance so that he can be
accepted and approved by his perceived society. He
desperately tried hard to prove his worth and this practice of
pleasing people made him to repress his own feelings
especially if these are not incongruent with the people he
chose to please.

Alongside, Petitioners compelling self-interests and needs

become stronger as these gain much control of his actions
and decisions. He grew impulsive when it comes to the
immediate gratification of his goals. He became too
preoccupied of his own pleasures that he demanded other
people to cater to his every need. His increasing selforientation clashed with his debilitating desire to perform in
order to be accepted by his immediate milieu. These are
poorly integrated into a passive and self-centered person.
Though he may put up a show of efficiency and obedience,
his emotion is deemed lacking in depth thereby sabotaging
his relationships.

As no one was there to curb his defective ways, and help him
alter his growing negativism narcissism during childhood
until he entered adulthood, all his erroneous insight and
faulty way of perceiving things made the reference of his
current maladaptive behavioral pattern. He is further found
to have no ample consciousness of his defective behavior
which made him laid up to properly function as a
responsible, loving, caring, protective, faithful, trustworthy
and understanding husband.

35.
The reported behavioral manifestations of the
respondent satisfies the criteria of a HISTRIONIC
PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH UNDERLYING ANTISOCIAL
FEATURES. This personality disorder caused the respondent
to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations of marriage.

36. Dr. Xxx characterized the psychological incapacitation of

the respondent as follows:
Respondent has a striking sense of entitlement. She is
demanding of immediate compliance to her desires and
would want petitioner to meet her expectations. She always
wanted to feel being treated in a way where she plays the
upper hand in the relationship and would still insist on what
she wants even if it is already impractical. She always
wanted the attention of the petitioner. She demands for his
time and money and requires that she be immediately
appeased though she knew that it impossible to do so. If her
wishes are not heeded, she easily bombards the Petitioner
with unnecessary and pointless naggings that are not helpful
in any way. Petitioner discovered that Respondent is the
dominant and controlling type. She wanted things her way
and would be very angry when her wants are not granted.
Petitioner narrated, pag galit ako, lalo niya ako gagalitin,
sasabay siya, kaya ko na lang mananahimik, pakumbaba na
lang ako. It was then when Petitioner realized that he and
Respondent are incompatible to each other. He already
wanted to separate from her but he could not do so when
she broke the news that she is already pregnant with their
child.

The respondents way of interaction is often characterized by

seductive and provocative behaviors to elicit the response
she wanted from man. With her interpersonally attentionseeking ways, she can be in her flirtatious, vain and
exhibitionistic approach to others especially the Petitioner.
They engaged in sexual acts not long after the met each
other personally. She would usually employ dramatic tactics
and emotional trap to manipulate the Petitioner into doing
his bidding. She knew that Petitioner would not be able to
stand knowing that their son are ailing, thus by all means
she used it against him to incur money. On the same year,
Respondent asked PHP 300,000 from the Petitioner
apparently for their childs heart operation. The following
year, she asked PHP 400,000 from him for follow-up
operation of their child. Petitioner had incurred debts just to

raise such amount in order to improve the health condition

of their child. Later on, however, Petitioner inquired at the
Baguio Hospital with regards the childs record and was
shocked to learn that no operations were performed for the
child.

She is an egocentric and pleasure oriented person. She is

selfish and only thinks of her own comfort and happiness,
even at the expense of her marriage and family. She is
reluctant to give up selfish indulgence and failed to be
responsible enough to attend to her duties. Arguments would
ensue since she wanted every dime of Petitioners income
though she knew that he also had responsibilities with his
siblings. She is unwilling to share and questions the
Petitioner if he ever gives support to his family. Yet Petitioner
would also be disappointed since she never saved any
remittances that he sends to her. She demanded more
money from the Petitioner and was questioning the support
he is giving for his siblings education. Petitioner argued that
prior to getting married; he had already cleared this with the
Respondent. He told her that he will still support his siblings
who sacrificed their education for him to graduate first so
that he can have a job. Supporting them was his way to pay
them back for their sacrifices. However, Respondent took
this negatively and would demand more financial support
even if Petitioner was also giving to her family whenever
needed. Respondent would even pick up a fight with
Petitioners youngest sibling with regards the financial
remittances. Petitioner narrated, dahil lang sa biruan,
nagkakaaway sila ng kapatid kong bunso, pikon kasi siya
(respondent). Despite Respondents protests, Petitioner
continued to finance the education of his siblings.

She lacks empathy and is unwilling to consider the feelings

of other people especially the Petitioner. She utilizes
rationalization mechanism to justify her own transgression
and blames everything to the petitioner. Her blindness of her
own fault made changes impossible in the marriage since
she is not inclined to wear the shoes of the Petitioner. She
demands, carps and argues just to get what she wants

without being sensitive that Petitioner has his own needs

too. She wanted to come in sight as the victim just to make
light of her own misdeeds in the marriage wherein fact it was
her poor decisions that has put her in the position.

She is deceitful woman who is not fettered by any moral

obligation to create lies for her personal gains or profit.
Always aiming to alleviate herself, she lied regarding the
identity of her child and passed it on as the son of the
Petitioner to trap him into marrying her. She never cared for
the well-being of her son or the Petitioner knowing that the
scores of lies she created will affect both of them. In the past
years that they were together, she kept to herself the
knowledge that Petitioner is not the biological father of her
son yet she asserted herself like a fishmonger wifes who
always demanded for support.

The personality aberration that respondent is suffering from

has its initial course during the crucial developmental phase
in her lifechildhood and adolescent yearswhere negative
experiences and child-rearing practices severely affects the
personality development. In the case of the Respondent, she
grew up without a father figure since her parents separated
when she was a baby and he never communicated with
them again after he left them. Looking at the picture, the
young respondent has developed a strong sense of
insecurity and inadequacy in absence of fatherly affection
that she needs. Hence, she grew up compensating for this
insecurity by engaging in relationship with men by being
seductive and provocative in the hopes that they could fill
the void that she has inside only to be always disappointed
since they always falls short to her high expectation. She
never realized that they would never fulfill or quench the
emotional insecurity that she has.

Along with this is the lack of fatherly affection comes the

lack of adequate discipline and guidance from her mother
who was lenient in her ways with them especially the
respondent. Albeit that they were not financially well off, her

mother indulges her whim and allows her so much freedom

to do what she wants. Punishment and sufficient disciplinary
measures were not provided to her leaving the young
respondent with the defective notion that she has the liberty
to do what she wants. Later on, with the excess freedom
given to her, she has come to believed that she could use
anyone at her own disposal, without care for his or her
feelings and emotions. Since she grew up perceiving herself
so deprived of love, she compensates later on by asserting
her bloated self-esteem to people. She became vain,
materialistic and demanding as her way to appease
whatever ineptitude she has. Enjoying a rather unfettered
life due to the absence of effective caretakers, she became
dominant and demanding, as well as stubborn in insisting for
what she wants no matter how impractical it could be.
Respondent did not learn to be submissive, that she would
do things without giving consideration on how it might affect
others or her relationships.

With this, due to the absence of proper guidance, and

effective disciplinary means, respondent grew up embracing
these maladaptive responses and turning them as the pillars
of her personality.

37. Dr. xxx concluded that the respective psychological

incapacities of the petitioner and respondent speak of
antecedence because such flawed personality began before
they entered marriage and manifested only thereon.

38.
Dr. xxx described
the respective psychological
incapacities of the petitioner and the respondent as GRAVE,
PERVASIVE, SERIOUS, SEVERE, and PERMANENT rendering it
totally beyond repaid despite available treatments and
intervention considering the severity of petitioners and
respondents aberrant psychological conditions, which makes
reconciliation very difficult and impossible.

39. Quoted hereunder is the pertinent part of the Report of

Dr. xxx, viz:
Since the psychological aberration of the Petitioner and
Respondent stemmed early in their lives, these have been
engraved into their system making their functioning and
adjustments highly defective. Being an integral part of their
wellbeing, such disorders are considered to be grave,
pervasive, serious, severe and permanent rendering it totally
beyond repair despite available treatments and intervention.
Likewise, their psychological incapacitations are noted to be
of juridical antecedence meaning - such flawed personality
pattern began before they entered marriage and manifested
only thereon. Considering the severity of Petitioner and
Respondents
aberrant
psychological
conditions,
reconciliation is found to be very difficult and impossible.

40.
The diagnosed psychological incapacities of both the
petitioner and the respondent prevent them from mutually
performing their marital duties to each other. In support of
this, Dr. xxx states:

Erstwhile couple, xxx and xxx, could never live together

harmoniously as authentic husband and wife with the
psychological incapacitation of both of them. The hope of
reconciliation with the hope of a functional or normal marital
union founded on love, respect, trust, support and
commitment is viewed to be uncertain and impossible as
these essential attributes of marriage never existed from the
start of the relationship.

41. Dr. xxx thus recommends that the marriage between the
parties be declared null and void based on the established
psychological incapacitation of both the petitioner and the
respondent as follows:

Hence, with much consideration to the findings and

discussions made, the undersigned psychologist humbly
requests to this Honorable Court that their marriage be
declared null and void, on the account of Petitioners
psychological incapacitation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that the marriage of the parties be declared null and
void from the beginning under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Petitioner also prays for other reliefs as may be

deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Las Pinas City, xxx.

LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER
& ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES
Counsel for the Petitioner
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C. V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City
Tel. Nos. 872-5443; 846-2539
Fax No. 846-2539

X x x.