Sample Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
Sample petition for declaration of nullity of void marriage for reference purposes....
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SAN JUAN CITY, BRANCH _______
MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA OBONG, Petitioner,
JDRC Case No. ___________ For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
- versus VINCE PAULO D. OBONG, Respondent. X-------------------------------------------------X
PETITION Petitioner, MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA OBONG, by counsel, respectfully alleges:
Petitioner, MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA OBONG, is a Filipino, of legal age, with residence at #4673 Oriole Extension, New Prodon Subdivision, Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela City; respondent is likewise a Filipino, of legal age, with residence at 500 Lt. Artiaga Street, City of San Juan Metro Manila, where he may be served with summons and other legal processes.
The parties were married on January 19, 2004 before Rev. Sergio S. Pangan, at City Hall, Manila. (A copy of the Marriage Contract is attached hereto and made integral part hereof as Annex “A”.)
One (1) legitimate child was born out of their union namely: LOUISSE ISABELLI VILLARTA OBONG, born on May 20, 2004. (A copy of her Certificate of Live birth is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “B”.)
No properties were acquired by the parties during the marriage; nor were any debts incurred by the parties.
The parties met each other in an internet chat room in March 2003. They met, physically, two months later when they started dating two or three times a week.
Petitioner’s family reacted very positively and delightfully when they learned that someone was romantically interested in her and looked forward to meeting him. They were so pleased that an “able-bodied man” was interested in their daughter despite her disability. Her entire family, welcomed him with open arms.
Petitioner had suffered a spinal cord injury which left her paralyzed from the waist down after a vehicular accident when she was 15 years old.
It was a short courtship. They were engaged by December 2003, even though petitioner had not met respondent’s family as he never sought to introduce them.
Deeply in love, petitioner proposed to respondent the idea of
them having their own baby because she was sure that she loved him very much and thought it “was perfect to have a family with him.”
They decided to consult and OB-GYN if indeed it would be
physically dangerous for her to bear a child. The doctor informed them that it was safe for petitioner to bear a child. By August, she was pregnant.
Then petitioner proposed to respondent in December 2003 that
they might as well get married because they were about to have a baby. He agreed. She and her sister-in-law (who had friends working in the city hall) took care of all the legal requirements. The wedding was set for 19 January 2004.
A day of two before their wedding day, petitioner tried to reach respondent numerous times to coordinate the plans with him for the actual wedding. But he never responded.
Respondent only reacted around 1 a.m. of January 19, the actual wedding date. Instead of an excited groom-to-be, he taunted her with: “Ano ka ba?! Ano ba ang problema mo?” She asked him why he was not answering her texts and calls and if they were going to push through with the wedding. He said, yes, the wedding will take place, but no apology was given for not responding to her frantic calls and text messages earlier.
Respondent told petitioner he would pick her up in the morning.
He did, but was 30-60 minutes late. Before they got out of the car at the City Hall, they talked about wedding expenses: fees for the wedding arrangements and the small reception after for the few witnesses and guests who were friends of hers. Because he said he was short of cash, she gave him money to pay for City Hall fees and their reception.
Petitioner and respondent were married in the City Hall of Manila followed with a reception at a Manila restaurant with only her friends in attendance. After the celebration, the newlyweds went back to their respective homes - she, to her parents’ home and he, to his. Since she was already pregnant, there was no honeymoon.
The marriage never existed.
Respondent is immature. He was a “Mama’s boy” it did not matter if he did not see his new bride for a long time as long as he was able to attend to his mother’s orders. It was usual for his mother to text him a message, even telling him to come back home because it “was about to strike midnight, and it was late already”. His response was to immediately jump off on his feet and bid his spouse goodbye.
Respondent did not love and respect petitioner. Although they were already married, he never made an effort to meet his family. What was worse was that he disappeared for long periods of time and seemed not to have time for her. Whenever he did deign to visit her, he would visit her very late and left very early. He refused her sex many times, because according to him, he was tired from work.
Respondent did not support petitioner. He rarely fulfilled his promises. When she was in labor and about to give birth, he promised that he would be around but he was nowhere to be found.
9.3.1 Because he was always out of reach, he was not around when she gave birth to their child on 20 May 2004.
Respondent failed to support his child. He never took interest in their daughter – never contributed even for the simplest needs like diapers, vaccination, or milk. For the preparation of their daughter’s christening, he agreed to take charge of the invitations. She checked on him regularly regarding the invitations and both agreed that she would pick them up a week
before the baptism. On the appointed day, he told her to call him up at 1:30 p.m.
9.4.1 Then he suddenly called, telling her not to pick up the invitations because these were not ready. Upset, she hung up. Thereafter, he never contacted her or even tried to update her on how the preparations were going.
9.4.2 The night before the baptism, she called him just to confirm if he were going to attend the baptism. He said, yes, and for them to just meet in church. The next morning when she and her family arrived, he was already there and participated in the christening. Then they all went to her parents’ house for a little gathering. While there, even with a lot of guests, he left the gathering as if he were not the father of the newly christened baby. 9.4.3 After their baby’s christening in September 2004, he stopped visiting them. He never made an effort to see how their daughter was doing. When their daughter was 8 months old, he still had not shown up. When she was finally able to talk to him, all he could say was to take good care of their child. Ever since she was born, even during special occasions like Christmas and most specially their daughter’s birthday, he never took the initiative to at least greet the little girl. He even removed his daughter’s Friendster account from his account, which was the easiest way for him to contact or be updated about her. When she told him that their daughter wanted to see him, he said he had “a very busy schedule.”
Respondent was unfaithful to petitioner. He was always unavailable. To add insult to injury, he brought his mistress to visit her. He had the audacity to post his pictures with his mistress and her own daughter showing how happy and proud he is with his second family.
9.5.1 She tried to contact him constantly by texting messages (which he ignored), by calling his house (but he was never home), by calling his mobile (which was never answered), and by calling his office (to which the reply was that he was either busy, not yet in or he had just left).
9.5.2 One night, petitioner decided to proceed to his house in San Juan. She went with her brother. When they arrived in front of the gate, he arrived as well, driving his car. Her brother invited him to talk privately. He transferred to their car, parked somewhere, and they talked privately. After a moment of silence she started to ask him why he was not visiting them anymore and he promised he would. Several days passed after their conversation and still he had not shown up nor contacted her.
9.5.3 She asked her sister-in-law to call his office thinking that maybe his officemates would be more receptive with a different caller and may even give the phone to him. His officemate said respondent did not come to work to make preparations for “his wedding to his girlfriend, who was his officemate.” She contacted his best friend, Kenneth, and asked if the information were true and his best friend reluctantly said, yes, indeed, it was true.
9.5.4 In January 2005, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent’s mother informing her about their relationship and their daughter and simply requesting them to acknowledge his daughter. She attached pictures of her daughter with the letter.
9.5.5 Days after she confronted his best friend, petitioner found out that respondent’s old number already belonged to respondent’s wife, a certain “Emma.”
9.5.6 Upset with this development, she called his best friend to ask if respondent could contact her. Respondent contacted her the next night telling her that he wanted to break up with her, that he loves his mistress, and he also told her that his mother already received her letter, so there was nothing to hide anymore.
9.5.7 Two months later, respondent and his mistress visited her daughter. Her family requested respondent not to bring his mistresss when he visited, but that he was welcome to see his daughter any time. They never saw him again.
9.6. Respondent’s lack of love, respect, fidelity and support for petitioner and their child affected their communication, time spent together, as well as their intimacy. They never even lived together as husband wife. 10. Psychological evaluations, performed by resident Psychologists of St. Luke’s Medical Center, Quezon City namely Dr. Jordan A. Tapales and Dr. Warren C. Placido, reveal that petitioner is suffering from a SelfDefeating Personality Disorder; while respondent is inferred to be suffering from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with marked Dependent features.
10.1. Petitioner’s personality disorder explains why she proposed to her boyfriend that they have a baby, why she proposed marriage when she got pregnant, and why she would still be surprised when he made his disappearing acts after their daughter was born.
10.2. Petitioner’s personality disorder explains why she tolerated her spouse’s disappearing acts after their daughter was born.
10.3. Petitioner’s self defeating features were manifested by her: 10.3.1. Helplessness, naivety, gullibility, cynicism, proneness to depression, and resignation to inevitable disappointments of life (she kept on texting and calling her philandering spouse to pay her and her daughter a visit).
10.3.2. Extremely low self-esteem. She seems confused or uncertain about her own identity, thus, not inclined to feel deserving, to promote herself well. There are indications that she lacks insight into the true nature or degree of her current problems. This lack of insight fosters a potential for hysterical (proposed to her boyfriend about having a baby, then
dissociative, or somatic reactions.
10.3.3. She gains her self-esteem from other people. An aggrieved individual, she will continually be the victim. She routinely takes the attention off herself so that the important people in her life take advantage of her good nature.
10.3.4. Finding meaning in laboring to make others’ lives better, drawn to people in pain and in need, whose suffering and
hardship she will do all she can to alleviate. She would labor long and hard (e.g. spent for all the wedding expenses, her daughter’s maintenance needs, etc.) happy to lose sight of herself in her helpfulness to a cause of a person.
10.4. One has to go back to her early childhood in order to understand the root cause of her poor emotional development. Her father was “a loving father, a good provide, and hot-tempered” while her mother was “loving, family oriented, and too emotional”. The youngest child in a brood of eight, she would get traumatized when her brother got hooked on drugs. Then an almost fatal accident occurred that left her paralyzed from the waist down. She solved problems basically on her own, never complained, and just obeyed. The one time she made a decision on her won was when she gave herself to her manipulative, abusive boyfriend who was “able bodied and handsome”.
The respondent, as stated, suffers from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with marked dependent features.
11.1. The Diagnostic Criteria for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV-TR, 2000 p.717) are: (a-1.) Has a grandiose sense of self importance (e.g. got paraplegic girlfriend pregnant, married her, then abandoned her and moved in with his mistress); (a-2.) Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love (e.g. brought his mistress home to meet his wife); (a-3.) Believes he is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or
high status people (e.g. his pay check was only meant for him); (a-4.) Requires excessive admiration (e.g. must be given priority in everything as his needs/requests are more important than everyone else’s); (a-5.) Has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his expectations ( e.g. to his bride-to–be that he was very short of cash for their wedding, so let her pay for the wedding the reception expenses); (a-6.) Is interpersonally exploitative (e.g. after giving 5k for the birth of his daughter, left all other hospital and maintenance expenses for his wife’s account); (a-7.) Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others (e.g. did not care how spouse felt when he was unavailable to her when she gave birth to their daughter); (a-8.) Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors and attitudes (e.g. goes to great lengths to make sure he gets what he wants – others’ needs are only secondary to his).
11.2. The root cause of his Narcissistic Personality Disorder stems from the trauma of having a high profile father (a basketball player and vice-mayor) and an emotionally fragile mother who nearly had a nervous breakdown. To cope, he learned to be very self-centered, interpersonally exploitative, manipulative, entitled to have whatever he wants.
11.3. Respondent’s marked Dependent features were manifested by: his difficulty in making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others (e.g. consented to
impregnate his girlfriend to marry her, then abandoned her, etc.); his need for others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his/her life (e.g. let his bride-to-be spend for their wedding, their baby’s christening and other maintenance needs of their daughter); his difficulty in expressing disagreement with others because of fear of loss of support or approval (e.g. never introduced his wife to his parents); his difficulty in initiating projects or doing things on his own because of a lack of self-confidence in judgment or abilities (e.g. could not tell his parents that he got married, has a daughter); and his going to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance to do things that are unpleasant (e.g. even as a married man, was at his mother’s beck and call).
12. The parties’ acts and omissions indicate that they failed to provide each other with love, companionship, fidelity, respects, mutual help, support and care required by law. Respondent, particularly, also failed to provide love, care and support for his daughter.
13.The parties’ inability to discharge the essential obligations of marriage is grave and incurable, as the acts constituting the same are habitual, persistent, unchanging and of enduring nature.
14.The failure and/or inability of the parties to perform the essential marital obligations as shown in the foregoing paragraphs most certainly render the marriage between the parties null and void on the ground of their psychological incapacity under the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code.
15.To deliver her from the ordeal of a marriage that only proved to be a farce and which had brought her nothing but pain and grief and to free from the eternal embarrassment and inequity of being bound by marriage
to a husband who was completely abandoned his obligations to his family, petitioner was constrained to seek this ultimate recourse of annulment. PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner prays that immediately after the filing of the Petition, the Honorable Court order respondent to pay support pendent lite in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND [P20,000.00] PESOS a month, while this case is pending. Thereafter, and after due hearing, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court render judgment as follows: 1. Declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void ab initio under the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. 2. Confirming permanent custody of the minor child, LOUISSE ISABELLI VILLARTA OBONG in petitioner. 3. Holding that petitioner shall henceforth revert to and use her maiden name MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA 4. Adjudicating all other legal effects of the decree of nullity of marriage. Petitioner prays for such other relief just and equitable in the premises. City of Paranaque for City of San Juan, 28 July 2014.
RONN ROBBY D. ROSALES Counsel for Petitioner 412 Gemini Street, Annex 45 Better Living, Paranaque City PTR No. 6346588, 01-25-14, Manila IBP No. 737133, 01-10-14, Makati City Attorney’s Roll No. 31018 MCLE No.:II-00130
VERIFICATIONAND CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, MIKA ISABEL P. VILLARTA OBONG of legal age, residing at 4673 Oriole Extension, New Prodon Subdivision, Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela, after having sworn to by law hereby depose and state under oath that: 1. I have ceased the preparation of the foregoing Petition; 2. The allegations contained herein are true and correct of my own knowledge; 3. I have not commenced any other action or proceedings involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; and that, if I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different Division thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. I undertake to promptly inform this Honorable Court within five (5) days therefrom. In witness whereof, I have hereunto signed this Verification this 25th day of July 2014, in Makati City, Philippines.
MIKA ISABLE P. VILLARTA OBONG Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 25th day of July 2014 at Makati City affiant exhibiting to me her Community Tax Certificate No. 11986199 issued on 8 January 2014 in Valenzuela City.
Doc. No. ____; Page No. ____; Book No. ____; Series of 2014
MYKA T. ORBIN NOTARY PUBLIC Until December 31, 2014 PTR No. 458795, 01-25-14, Manila IBP No. 685243, 01-10-14, Makati City Attorney’s Roll No. 31018 MCLE No.:II-00130
EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL [Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court]
PETITIONER, by counsel, submits that the foregoing Petition is being served to the adverse party by registered mail due to lack of time and owing to heavy workload of the liaison officer of the undersigned lawyer.
RONN ROBBY D. ROSALES
CREDO NUBLA FRANCISCO AND JOSE Counsel for Respondent CVCLAW Center 11th Avenue cor. 39th Street Bonifacio Triangle, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City, Metro Manila