REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

10TH Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL
Branch 37
Cagayan de Oro City

ANA ROSE HILARIO-AROJADO CV-FMY-CASE NO.2017157

Petitioner,

-versus- FOR: DECLARION OF

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

MIGUEL A. AROJADO
Respondent,
x ------------------------------------/

PRE –TRIAL BRIEF FOR THE PLAINTIFF

THE PLAINTIFF, by the undersigned counsel, to the Honorable Court, most respectfully
submits the foregoing, to wit:

I. STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION

1. The instant case is grounded on whether the marriage entered into between the
parties in the herein case on July 8, 2019 is valid.
2. After the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant, the latter one week thereafter
went to Pampanga on the pretext that he would only go swimming with his co-
workers. Such fact was however discovered later by the plaintiff to be not true. The
truth being that, while in Pampanga, the defendant was with a woman whom he
proposed a marriage to.
3. The truth of such matter was reviled when a message and a photo was sent via
Facebook by the defendant’s former girlfriend, showing her and the defendant
hugging and was about to place a kiss on her.
4. Knowing what really happened and considering that it was only a week after their
marriage, the plaintiff felt terribly in shocked and in pain.
5. Two weeks after the marriage, the defendant went to Libya to work. While in Libya,
it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that he was dating other woman. She have
known such fact when he opened his laptop and saw pictures of him going to places
in Libya while kissing and hugging other women.
6. The plaintiff confronted the defendant regarding such matters however every time
she does, he would only say that the women were just there for him to kill time.
7. While in the Philippines before leaving again for abroad after 4 months, the
defendant spends most of his time with friends, coworkers and other women. He
was unable even to bought toys for his children as he was always busy.
 8. Again when the defendant was back abroad, this time in Abu Dhabi, he was still
doing the same thing with other women. The evidence of the matter comes to the
senses of the plaintiff when a friend of the woman whom the defendant had a
relationship with send her pictures via Facebook. The photo showed the defendant
and the woman naked, where one could see their private parts. It even looked like
they just finished having carnal knowledge as semen can be seen.
9. In 2013, the defendant came back in the Philippines, particularly in their new
residence. Plaintiff discovered this time that the defendant was seeing another
woman somewhere in Manila. She further discovered in 2016 that sometime in
2013, the defendant had a child with the woman. Fact is, that woman is now the
live-in partner of his.
10.The philandering and irresponsible attitude of the defendant towards his family and
the fact that he was only sending a token amount, which is not insufficient to
support the family, plaintiff was then constrained to work abroad.
11.When she returned in 2017, instead of going to Cavite, she went and resided in
Cagayan de Oro City considering the fact that the defendant is already leaving with
another woman.
12. Looking back at the marriage now, it appears that the defendant even at the
celebration of the marriage did not possess the psychological capacity to comply
with the basic marital obligation, that is, to live together, observe mutual love,
respect, and render help and support.
13.The psychological incapacity of the defendant which appears to be incurable would
be dehumanizing for the plaintiff if cohabitation between the parties will continue.
14. It is thus only proper to declare such marriage void pursuant to the provision of
Article 36 of the Family Code and to declare further that plaintiff be free from
marital bond with the defendant and be declared incapable of inheriting from the
plaintiff
15. A plea for support amounting to P50, 000 every month is also be sought to by the
plaintiff considering the fact that the three children of the parties are still of tender
age as of this date and since the defendant is presently working abroad.

II. AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

The plaintiff is willing to enter into amicable settlement as may be agreed by the
parties so long as the same is just and equitable.

III. ISSUES
 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT POSSESS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPACITY TO
COMPLY WITH THE BASIC MARITAL OBLIGATION, THAT IS, TO LIVE TOGETHER,
OBSERVE MUTUAL LOVE, RESPECT AND RENDER HELP AND SUPPORT
2. WHETHER OR NOT AN ORDER DECRLARING THE NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE
PURSUAN TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE IS PROPER
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE SUPPORT BEING PRAYED
FOR

IV. ADMISSIONS AND STIPULATIONS

1. The identities of the parties and their personal circumstances

V. DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS
1. Exhibit “A” Marriage Certificate
2. Exhibit “B”, “C”, “D” - Certificate of Birth

VI.
WITNESSES
1. The plaintiff, Ana Rose Hilario-Arojado
2. Other witnesses, reserved.

VII. LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

1. The law of Family Code
2. Related jurisprudence on the matter.

VIII. TRIAL DATES

As may be agreed by the parties, with the court’s imprimatur

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Cagayan de Oro City, February 25, 2018.

PALASAN, GALEON, PUYALES, COLLADO

& Associates LAW OFFICE
Door 1, Goodwill Bldg., Rizal – Fernandez Sts., Cagayan de Oro City
palasanlawoffice@yahoo.com/ Contact Nos. (088) 851-2051/0906-509-4613

By:

TIBURCIO M. PALASAN, JR.

Counsel for the plaintiffs

ROLL NO. 37410

PTR NO: 4728944, 01-09-2018
IBP NO: 1080045, 20-11-2017
Issued in Cagayan de Oro City
MCLE Compliance No.VI-000395
Issued on November 3, 2018
tmpjr70@gmail.com