Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Davao City
Branch ______

PETER PAUL C. ARNAIZ,

Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. ___________

For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage

OLIVIA M. REYES-ARNAIZ,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

01. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 46

Obrero St., Davao City while respondent is likewise of legal age,
Filipino citizen and a resident of 31 Monteverde St., Davao City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;

02. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been
legally married on June 7, 2015 at Sta Ana Parish Church, in Lapu-
Lapu St., Poblacion District, Davao City, a copy of their marriage
certificate is hereto attached as Annex A;

03. A child was born in wedlock, Arvin R. Arnaiz, aged 2 years old, a
copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;

04. In retrospect petitioner and respondent were high school friends,

having been schoolmates at Assumption College of Davao in high
school. Back then, petitioner had a girlfriend, Mariel, who was
respondents friend as well. After he and Mariel broke up, he lived in
with another girlfriend, whom he found out was married. Frustrated,
he returned to his parents home and met respondent again after a
long while. This time, they were already college graduates and were
both scouting for employment. Both of them got employed in
Sutherland Global Services.

Page 02.
05. Aside from being officemates, they were likewise attracted to
each other physically. Although there were no emotional
attachments to one another, they frequently indulged in sexual
intimacies of which resulted in respondents pregnancy. Petitioner
did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl,
having had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support
their child.

06. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and

followers of the conservative mater dei, came to know about
respondents pregnancy, they prevailed upon petitioner to marry
respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in haste
and in a simple church ceremony.

07. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life, the newly-weds

lived with petitioners parents. On their first month of being married
was marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not
really in love with each other and were constantly at odds, no one
giving in for the other.

08. 2 months after getting married or in August 2015, petitioner flew

to Chicago to work as caregiver. He however sent money for
respondents medical needs as she was about to give birth. Despite
financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her
parents.

09. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the
Philippines and attempted to reconcile with respondent especially
after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to live again with
petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.

10. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It
became convenient for both to live separately as they would
constantly fight when they are together. Soon petitioner got
employed with a construction job owned by his relatives.
Respondent too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation
drove both petitioner and respondent to have their respective lovers.

11. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was

approved and he was slated to leave for the States sometime
September 2005. Before he left, he talked with respondent and they
both agreed that they will both use the time away from each other to
think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to
 get back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner
comes back from his studies abroad.

Page 03.

12. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in
odd jobs to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was
respondents turn to go abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and
respondent used to communicate thru text messaging and they both
agreed to come home.

13. Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent
came home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a
family. Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they
frequent arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out
that respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in
touch with her. And worst, respondent had not severed her
relationship with him, thus, the guy maintained communications
with her. This was the last straw that broke the camels back, so to
speak.

14. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.

15. Petitioner, convinced of the futility of his efforts, decided that he

deserves to start life anew with feelings of hope for a brighter future
since there is obviously no hope that respondent can cope up with
her obligations as wife;

16. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a

psychological evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope up with
the essential obligations of marriage. After evaluation, respondent
was found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the
essential marital obligations of marriage borne from her lack of
maturity, which affected her sense of rational judgment and
responsibility. These traits reveal her psychological incapacity under
Art. 36 of the New Family Code of the Philippines and is more
appropriately labeled Anti-Social and Narcissistic personality
disorder ;

17. Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity.

Respondent showed no concern for her obligation towards her
 family in violation of Art. 68 of the New Family Code which provides
that husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support..
Petitioner is also filing this case under Art. 36 of the same Code as the
respondent manifested apparent personality disorder and
psychological dysfunction, i.e. her lack of effective sense of rational
judgment and responsibility, otherwise peculiar to infants, by being
psychologically immature and failing to perform her responsibilities
as wife;

Page 04.

18. That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and

incurable and existed prior to the marriage and became manifest
during its existence;

19. That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real
properties in the course of their marriage.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be declared a nullity. It is
likewise prayed that if and when parties are able to enter into an extrajudicial
settlement as to custody and joint parenting, the same be adopted by this
Court and in the absence thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and
obligations as parents be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. We pray for
such other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises.

Davao City. May 12, 2017

Atty. HELEN PAREDES-LIZADA

Counsel for Petitioner
Wheels Executive Suites
Wheels Bldg., E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave.,
Quezon City
IBP No. 777818 dtd. 01-07-09 Davao City
PTR No. 9478574 /01/14/09/ Davao City
Roll No. 33178
MCLE Compliance II 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2017

VERIFICATION
 I, PETER PAUL S. ARNAIZ, of legal age, under oath, states:

01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;

02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition
of my own personal knowledge;

Page 05.

03. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum

shopping, I hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, or Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; b) to the best of my knowledge, no
such action or proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals
or any other tribunal or agency; c) If I should learned that similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before such tribunals or bodies, I shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court of agency where
the original pleading and sworn certification have been filed.

PETER PAUL S. ARNAIZ

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of September

2017, affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.

Doc. No. ________

Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2009.