Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LORELA A. ROJO,
Petitioner, CIVIL CASE NO. R-CEB-16-01402-CV
FOR: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
-versus-
1. They got married in a civil wedding held before the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, Branch 1, Capitol Site Cebu City as evidenced by the Certificate of
Marriage marked as Annex A.
4. Petitioner was working at MEPZA when respondent came along and was
1
9. After petitioner discovered the location of said mistress, she and the
mother of the respondent went to the house of said mistress in Ronda and
they personally talked with the father of the girl who was very surprised and
threatened to cut off the head of the respondent because he lied to them
introducing himself as single.
11. Respondent’s relationship with his girlfriend from Ronda ended after he
discovered that there was a guy courting with his mistress from Ronda
which made him depressed.
2
12. The womanizing activities of the respondent did not end there. When he
Page
The petitioner and her witnesses were presented during the face-to-
face trial of this case. On the questions propounded by this Court petitioner
testified that she married the respondent on 2001 and have been sweet hearts
for nine (9) months and were both twenty nine (29) years of age when they
got married; that they were not able to sire a child as they were just together
for a week after the marriage, then respondent left for Taiwan for the
employment contract for two years and when he came back still petitioner
3
did not get pregnant while together, however, not having a child has not
Page
been an issue to them; that respondent never gave money to petitioner even
until his return making a reason that he could not sent because he is still
paying the loans, petitioner did not insist to be given with the salary as she
was also working at MEPZA; she testified that all of respondent’s money
gone to his mistress named Honeylen Macachor; that when respondent came
back from Taiwan, they fetched him in the airport and she observed
respondent is looking everywhere as if looking for someone or something
and she observed that respondent was no longer her husband that she used to
know he seems to be cold already; that when respondent came back from
Taiwan, they stayed at Banawa for months but there were times that when
she came home, respondent was not there because he is with friend from
Taiwan and she could not sleep, so she called him and asked where he was
and he said that he was with his friends; they had fights and arguments so
much that respondent had to go back to Carcar and petitioner to stay in
Lapu-lapu; that by this time respondent was with his mistress name
Honeylen Macachor who came ahead of her husband; that petitioner and her
mother-in-law went to Ronda and talk to the father of the girlfriend of her
husband; that her mother-in-law introduced her to the father of Honeylen as
the wife of the respondent and the father was mad at the respondent because
he introduced himself as single; that petitioner told her mother-in-law about
their situation and when respondent was confronted by his mother-in-law,
the latter was mad and it lead to confrontation and quarrel in the family; that
aside from Honeylen, respondent was linked to Wendelen Quiapo as his
present girlfriend whom they had a child named Ciaomhe Wendell Quiapo
Rojo.
this Court testified that she know was also the friend of both petitioner and
respondent; that they used to live together in the same boarding house at
Sanciangco, she lived downstairs while respondent and petitioner lived
upstairs; they know the parties while they were sweethearts until they got
married; that respondent stated to confide with her problem and even once
told her that when her husband visited the Philippines and stayed with his
mother, and every time petitioner would go to their house on weekends, the
respondent would simply ignore her despite greeting him, good evening
Carlo. On the questions propounded by Fiscal Cellona, Lorena Sarnillo
testified that she know the respondent before their marriage as they stayed in
the same boarding house; that at the time she observed that the parties are
sweet, they would go to the together as respondent also worked at MEPZA.
However, other than this, she cannot think more of the respondent as after
respondent and petitioner got married, she was not meet Carlo (respondent)
because he left for Taiwan.
Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner argued on his case insisting
that there was sufficient basis to nullify the assailed marriage on account of
respondent’s psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
Code.
SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, November 15, 2018.
JOSE NATHANIEL S. ANDAL
Assisting Judge