You are on page 1of 8

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


12th Judicial Region
Branch ____
Cotabato City

___________________,
Petitioner, Civil Case No. _____________

- versus - For: Declaration of Nullity of


Marriage Under Art. 36
__________________________, of the Family Code
Respondent.
x----------------------x

PETITION

COMES NOW, the petitioner assisted by the undersigned counsel and


unto this Honorable Court most respectfully files this Petition by averring,
THAT:

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, with full capacity to sue and be


sued with present address at ________________________, Cotabato City,
her actual residence for more than six (6) months already, who may be served
with notices, orders, writs and other processes of this Honorable Court
through her undersigned counsel at _______________________, Cotabato
City;
2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino, with full capacity to
sue and be sued who can be summoned and served with a copy of this
petition, notices, orders, writs and other processes of this Honorable Court at
his address at Km. 7, Peace Avenue, Bangkal, 8000, Davao City;

THE CAUSE OF ACTION

3. Petitioner met the respondent sometime in late 1993 while working


in the same campus of the Ateneo de Davao University, Davao City;
4. The courtship was short with both parties not really knowing each
other that well aside from the lives and personalities they have shown and
carried on in their workplace or outside of their homes. They were in a
relationship in no time after they began seeing each other;
5. The constant togetherness led to pre-marital carnal knowledge
despite the fact that the relationship has not gone into a deep interpersonal
level including having an effort to know each others families well. The
relationship was more of the social type of dating. As a matter of fact, for the
entire duration of the relationship before the marriage, respondent was only
able to get inside petitioners house in one occasion and that was during the
traditional pamanhikan;
6. Under the said situation and circumstances of mere dating on a
social level, the parties contracted marriage on May 5, 1995 at Davao City,
Philippines. Attached herewith is a copy of their certificate of marriage as
Annex A;
7. While the parties have maintained a conjugal home after their
marriage, the communication and interaction between them have not
improved including that with petitioners family. Respondent would not
readily accede to the invitation to visit petitioners family and ancestral home;
8. Though it was not yet within their immediate plan, petitioner got
pregnant with the parties first child named AAA and born on May 8, 1996 at
Davao City. After four years, the parties second child named BBB was born
on May 20, 2000 at Davao City. Attached herewith are copies of their
respective certificates of birth as Annexes B and C;
9. Throughout their cohabitation, there was little communication and
interaction between the parties aside from their social lives. When the parties
first child was born, the limitations of child rearing on their social lives have
taken its toll on their personalities that there would be less communication
and interaction between them as most of the time spent together have been
devoted to their said child;
10. This lack of marital interaction lead to squabbles and differences in
opinions in almost all matters of the union though none with respect to the
said children have been compromised. The carnal interaction between them
have become scarce after the birth of the first child and the fact that the
second child was conceived did not improve the situation. As a matter of fact,
when the petitioner was on the second trimester of her pregnancy until the
day the parties actually separated, there had been no carnal knowledge
between them;
11. This lack of marital communication and interaction also
characterized their union as one without any passion or intimacy. The
relationship was more of a functional union for the sake of the children that to
both parties have become dysfunctional in nature. While both parties were
gainfully employed, there was little effort to share with each other the fruits of
their respective labor and financially support each other from their respective
incomes aside from the ordinary financial requirements in the conjugal
dwelling and with their children;
12. Respondents behavior towards the petitioner as a spouse is
observed to be one without due regard and respect to her person. He did not
show respect for the petitioner as a spouse and has totally disregarded her
needs as such whether sexually, physically, financially, morally or spiritually.
Not only did he refuse to give in to her physical and sexual needs, he had also
failed to furnish her financial support, and attend to her moral and spiritual
needs. Hardly was there an occasion that respondent, a Roman Catholic, had
gone to a religious service with petitioner at her church, the Philippine
Independent Church;
13. Respondent had also increased his absence from events involving
his marital obligations under the pretext of having to work. Dates with the
petitioner have not been religiously kept and important anniversaries have
been forgotten. Although respondent has not been amiss with respect to his
parental duties to his children and in all important events in their young lives,
he had totally disregarded his martial duties to the petitioner as he had not
even attended to the petitioner during her pregnancy of their second child in
the same way as he had done with their first born;
14. This increasing absence and inability to discharge his marital
obligations to the petitioner made the petitioner suspicious on the fidelity and
the capacity of the respondent to have carnal knowledge with her that
eventually led to spats and quarrels. Though respondent had not reneged on
his paternal obligations to his children, the cohabitation with the respondent
has become unbearable due to his consistent failure if not outright refusal to
show love, respect, and to fulfill all other important and essential marital
obligations towards the petitioner;
15. These conditions between the parties continued and despite
attempts to correct it with whatever communication was left between them,
all these attempts proved futile as the situation persisted and eventually
became worse. The cohabitation between the parties after the birth of their
second child has become more to rear the children and provide for their future
as well as protecting them from the ill-effects of the marital squabbles and
shielding them from the harm of the impending marital break-up and not
really for their marital union and spousal obligations;
16. Since arguments and discussions have become the rule between the
petitioner and the respondent though unknown to their children who were still
of tender years, the petitioner has left the conjugal house bringing with her
their said children on two (2) occasions temporarily on short periods.
However, on September 11, 2001, petitioner finally left the conjugal house
together with the children for good;
17. After almost two months of physical separation, petitioner came
back to Davao City and decided to leave and give the custody and care of
their said children to the respondent as petitioner was not then gainfully
employed. Their children were then aged 5 years and 1 year old, respectively;
18. From that time on, petitioner has left Davao City and resided for a
time in Iloilo City where she was working and to other places including her
present residence as required by her work;
19. Since November 2001 up to the time of the filing of this petition,
the children of the parties have been in the custody and care of the respondent
who had religiously attended to their needs. Both are now schooling and have
adjusted to their present condition of being under a solo parent including the
arrangement of spending time with their mother, the petitioner, whenever she
is in Davao City for weekends or short school breaks and holidays as may be
allowed by reason of her employment outside of Davao City;
20. For the entire duration of these two years that their children was
with the respondent, petitioner had not made any demands to have custody
over their said children except during those occasional visits by reason of her
work and constantly changing work assignments. This condition does not
speak well of the capacity of the petitioner to have custody and care of the
children as she was able to live under such state for more than two years now;
21. For which reason, it would be for the best interest of the said
children to remain in the custody, care, and parental authority of the
respondent without necessarily depriving the petitioner of her right to visit
them or spend time with them on weekends, school breaks and holidays as
her time or that of the children would permit under the circumstances so as
not to deny from the said children the feelings they have for and awareness of
their mother;
22. The acts of the respondent point to a defect of a psychological
nature which renders him incapable of performing essential marital
responsibilities and duties and show a serious incapacity or impairment of
interpersonal sharing and support towards the petitioner which is a
personality disorder that clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability
to give meaning and significance to his marriage to the petitioner;
23. The parties have not lived together as husband and wife for most of
their married life though physically residing under one roof. The breakdown
of their marriage was not a result of mere incompatibility but was caused by
respondents inability to comply with his marital obligations of observing
love, respect, rendering help and support to the petitioner which existed even
at the time of the celebration of their marriage and which became more
manifest after such solemnization;
24. The senseless and protracted refusal to comply with marital
responsibilities to live together as husband and wife and not physical
companionship, observe love, respect, and render help and support to the
petitioner establishes that there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in
the person of the respondent, an adverse integral element in the personality
structure that effectively incapacitates the respondent from really accepting
and thereby complying with the obligations essential to his marriage to the
petitioner;
25. These acts of the respondent clearly show that he is psychologically
incapacitated to understand and comply with the essential marital obligations
of living together as husband and wife, observing love, respect and rendering
help and support to the petitioner. Such incapacity was present and subsisting
at the time of the celebration of the said marriage and became more manifest
after such solemnization. From respondents actuation, it is but proper that the
marriage of the parties be declared a nullity granting thereby the full normal
consequences of such declaration of nullity;
26. With respect to the children, petitioners failure to demand and seek
custody of their children for more than two years now show her incapacity to
have actual custody and actual care over them as she was able to live under
such state of separation from her children of tender years for such a long
period of time. Taking into consideration such incapacity and present
situation of the said children, it is for the best interest of the said minor
children that it be decreed after the declaration of nullity of the marriage that
the children be placed under the custody, care and parental authority of the
respondent since he is in a better position to provide and take care of the
emotional, spiritual, and financial needs of the said children;
27. This is however without depriving the petitioner of her right to visit
them or spend time with them on weekends, school breaks and holidays as
her time or that of the children would permit under the circumstances so as
not to deny from the said children the feelings they have for and awareness of
their mother;
28. Aside from the usual home appliances and furniture, the parties
have not acquired any other property except that there is a parcel of land
registered in the name of the respondent identified as Lot No. ____ Blk.
_____ located at Hinundayan Homes, Dumoy, Davao City covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- _____ of the Office of the Registry of
Deeds for Davao City. The said parcel of land though acquired before the
marriage was fully paid and released from mortgaged during their marriage
thus making it partly absolute community property. The aforesaid real
property shall be given to the children of the parties, in equal shares, as their
advance legitime. All other properties acquired by the parties aside from those
mentioned above were acquired by them in their personal capacities and
when they were already separated in fact.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully


prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered thereby:

1. declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as


NULL or VOID on the ground of psychological incapacity of the
respondent;
2. declaring and putting the minor children, AAA and BBB, in and
under the custody, care and parental authority of the respondent and
for him to give full support, love, and care to the said children in
accordance with their needs without depriving petitioner of her right to
visit the children or spend time with them on weekends, school breaks
and holidays as her time or that of the children would permit under the
circumstances;
3. ordering that the real property mentioned in this petition be given to
the said minor children in equal shares as their presumptive legitimes;
and;
4. ordering all the legal effects of a declaration of nullity of a marriage.

Petitioner further prays for other relief as are just and equitable in the
foregoing premises.
Cotabato City, Philippines, November 5, 2003.

________________________
Petitioner

Assisted by
______________________________
Counsel for the Petitioner
Address: , Cotabato City
PTR no. ____________; Date: ______; Place: _________
IBP OR no. ___________; Place: ___________
Roll of Attorneys no. ___________

VERIFICATION
AND CERTIFICATION

I, ____________, of legal age, Filipino, and an actual resident of


Cotabato City, upon oath depose and state, THAT:

1. I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case who had caused the


preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition; I hereby certify that the
factual allegations contained therein are true and correct of my own
knowledge;

2. I hereby certify that I have not filed or caused to be filed any other
case or proceeding involving the same issues or subject matter in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, nor, to the best of
my knowledge, is there such action or proceeding pending before said courts,
tribunal, or agency;

3. I undertake that should I hereafter learn that there is a similar action


pending before any of such courts, tribunal or agency, I shall report such fact
to this Honorable Court within five (5) days from such knowledge.

IN TESTIMONY THEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this


__________________ at Cotabato City, Philippines.

____________________________
Affiant
ctc no. _______________
issued on __________________
issued at Cotabato City

(JURAT)

You might also like