Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

12th Judicial Region
Tacurong City
Branch 20

NICCOLO C. CRUZ,
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. ___________

For: Annullment of Marriage

NICA M. BARRIDO-CRUZ,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of Purok

Daisy, Brgy. New Isabela, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat while
respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident
of General Luna St., Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, where she
may be served with summons, orders and other legal processes of
this Honorable Court;

2. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been

legally married on January 18, 2014 at Nuera Señora Candelaria,
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, a copy of their marriage certificate
is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

3. A child was born in wedlock, Nick M. Cruz, aged 6 years old, a

copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex
“B”;

4. In retrospect petitioner and respondent met sometime in August

2011 when respondent took her short vacation with business
opportunities in one of her relatives in General Luna Street,
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat. Petitioner and respondent were
both doing business under the networking scheme. Back then,
petitioner asked respondent’s personal contact number where the
latter gave the former for fling reasons. When respondent went
home at her hometown in Tagum City, Davao del Norte, she

1
 received phone calls and messages from petitioner. It was the
beginning of casual conversations over the phone and it continued
until in the early months of year 2012;

5. It was September 2012 that the respondent went to petitioner’s

hometown to attend a birthday celebration of another business
partner. Petitioner, upon knowing of the respondent’s arrival came
to see the latter.

6. On the same year, while respondent was managing her own

business in Davao City, petitioner visit respondent at the latter’s
apartment. Petitioner that time was managing his own networking
business in his hometown and regularly went to Davao City for at
least once a week for purchase of stocks.

7. It was December 2012 that petitioner and respondent decided to

become business partners. Respondent gave up her business in
Davao City and decided to permanently reside in petitioner’s
hometown. Aside from being business partners, they frequently
indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondent’s
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.

8. When respondent’s parents, who were devout catholics came to

know about respondent’s pregnancy, they prevailed upon
petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they
were married in haste and in a simple church ceremony.

9. Due to the downfall of networking business, the business failed.

They both decided to stop engaging in the business and lived
temporarily with petitioner’s parents while hoping to engage in
possible business opportunities.

10. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life with their newborn
baby and with no visible means of livelihood, the newly-weds
decided to live with petitioner’s parents. Their first six months 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.

11. Ten months after getting married or in November 2014,

petitioner flew to Dubai, UAE to work as welder. He however sent
money for respondent’s and the child’s needs. Despite financial
support coming from petitioner, respondent felt uncomfortable at
2
 her in-laws’ home. She left and went back to her parents in Tagum
City, Davao del Norte.

12. After petitioner’s working contract, 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.

13. 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.

14. This arrangement went on until petitioner’s working visa was

approved and he was slated to leave for United Kingdom
sometime February 2017. 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 work.

15. While abroad, he worked as well, taking odd jobs to support

himself and his family. He went back in school while working. In
October 2017, it was respondent’s turn to go abroad to work in
Thailand. Petitioner and respondent used to communicate thru
text messaging and they both agreed to come home.

16. Petitioner came back in January 2018, not long after,

respondent came home too and did not finish her contract
because she always got sick. They both decided to try and live
together again as a family. Unfortunately, since both of them
distrust each other, they frequent had arguments and
disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that respondent had a
boyfriend in Thailand, 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 camel’s back, so to speak.

17. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope
for reconciliation.
3
18. 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;

19. 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 ;

20. 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;

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

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

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

PRAYER

4
 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.

Tacurong City. March 22, 2018

Atty. AVAGLEZ C. PIROTE

Counsel for Petitioner
Notre Dame Centrum 1
Tacurong City, Sultan
Kudarat
IBP No. 123456 dtd. 06-26
95 Tacurong City
PTR No. 789012 /07/22/95/
Davao
Roll No. 34567
MCLE Compliance II – 8901234
Dtd. July 18, 2007

VERIFICATION

I, NICCOLO C. CRUZ, 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;

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
5
therefrom to the court of agency where the original pleading and sworn
certification have been filed.

NICCOLO C. CRUZ

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of March

2018, affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated
________________ issued in _________________.

Doc. No. ________

Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2018.