Sample Pre-Trial Brief (Final)

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Makati City, Branch 168

EUNICE CRUZ-SANTIAGO, Petitioner,

Civil Case No.: 12-168168 For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines

- versus MICHAEL SANTIAGO, Respondent. x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF THE PETITIONER The Petitioner, represented by the undersigned counsels as her attorneys-in-law, respectfully submits to this Honorable Court this Pre-Trial Brief, to wit:

I. POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Petitioner is not willing to consider any amicable settlement or undergo alternative modes of dispute resolution with respect to the primary prayer of this petition. However, the Petitioner is open to the possibility of amicable settlement in relation to the partition and accounting of the conjugal properties and assets of her union with the Respondent.

II. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS The Petitioner proposes the following stipulation of facts: 1. Petitioner met Respondent sometime in May 2000 at Power Plant Mall, Makati, where she worked part-time as a Sales Personnel at Fully Booked. Respondent was one of the customers of said bookstore whom she served and who took an immediate attraction to her. 2. Respondent relentlessly wooed Petitioner for six (6) months by showering her with flowers and gifts, visiting her frequently at the bookstore and in her school, Assumption Makati, and bringing her home. 3. During the courtship, Petitioner often asked Respondent where he worked and what his job was, but Respondent always replied that he was still looking for a suitable job that his mother would approve of. 4. Petitioner also asked Respondent where he gets his money whenever

they went out

on

dates since

the

latter

was

unemployed while he was courting Petitioner. Respondent replied that his parents always gave him an allowance for “gimmicks,” dates, and out-of-town trips.

5. During their dates, Petitioner observed that Respondent’s mother would call him every two hours and ask him where he was. Petitioner also observed that every time she went out on a date with the Respondent, he always bought his mother a bouquet of flowers before heading home. 6. Petitioner

eventually

committed

to

a

relationship

with

Respondent after about six (6) months of courtship when Respondent told her that he would stop courting her if she would not commit to a relationship with him. 7. About a month into the relationship, Petitioner attempted to break up with Respondent because she found out that the Respondent lied to her about looking for a job. Petitioner discovered that Respondent, since graduating from college, never sought employment. 8. Respondent later found employment in Villa Socorro Farm, a company owned by his family where his mother was the Chief Executive Officer, as an Sales Assistant. 9. Later, Respondent pleaded with the Petitioner to prove her love to him by asking her to have pre-marital sex with him and when she refused, Respondent attempted to commit suicide.

10. Fearing that Respondent would again attempt suicide, Petitioner engaged in pre-marital sex with him, resulting in her feelings of guilt and remorse. 11. Soon after this, Respondent proposed marriage to Petitioner because he sensed the feelings of constant guilt and remorse exhibited by Petitioner. 12. Petitioner and Respondent were married to each other at the Manila Cathedral on 10 January 2002 before a certain Rev. dela Cruz, as evidenced by their Certificate of Marriage dated 10 January 2002. The wedding ceremony and reception at the Manila Hotel was attended by both parties' friends and family. 13. After the marriage ceremony, the spouses returned to their respective parents' homes and lived separately since they had not yet established a conjugal home. 14. Respondent visited Petitioner in her house in North Forbes Park daily. However, Respondent’s mother would always call him up and ask him to go home. Respondent’s mother would ask their family driver to drive her to North Forbes Park to pick up her son in the wee hours of the morning. 15. In 2002, as a result of Respondent's request, Petitioner moved in to the house of Respondents' parents believing it would only be

temporary until the couple has enough money of their own to rent or purchase their own residence. 16. In the same year, the couple established an Internet café business along Makati Avenue, Makati which was mostly funded by Respondent’s parents with the exception of the funds invested by the Petitioner. 17. The Internet café business closed down about after a year due to the fact that it was not earning enough profit with Petitioner promising the Respondents' parents that they would reimburse them

for

the

capital

they

gave

to

start

the

business.

Respondents' mother on the other hand told her reimbursement was not necessary because she never expected the same. 18. Sometime in 2002, since the couple’s savings were still insufficient to purchase a house and lot, Petitioner applied for and was employed as a Management Trainee at Hong Kong Shanghai Bank (HSBC). 19. While working at HSBC, there were times that Petitioner would come home late from work only to discover that Respondent was out of the house or with his friends. 20. Also, there were a few occasions when Respondent was unable to fetch Petitioner from HSBC as a result of the prohibition of the former’s mother. In addition to this, there were several times

where Respondent would fetch Petitioner from the office with his mother. 21. In February 2003, Petitioner and Respondent were finally able to move out of Respondents' parents home. They moved to a house purchased by Respondents' mother on No. 32 Maya St., which was a block away from Respondents' parents home. 22. Respondent’s mother visited them every day, brought them food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Respondent’s mother also volunteered to pay for the house utilities. 23. Sometime in March 2003, Respondent was relieved of his position

at

Santiago

Corporation

when

it

was

dissolved.

Respondent did not seek employment elsewhere. 24. Respondent’s mother began giving her son allowances to defray his personal and familial expenses. Respondent’s mother asked Petitioner what expenses were not being covered by her salary and

even

volunteered

to

subsidize

their

other

household

expenses. 25. During this period of unemployment, Respondent consistently tried to convince Petitioner to move back into the home of Respondent’s parents, because he stayed there anyway almost the entire day since he had no work.

26. The couple moved back to Respondent's parents' house after Petitioner lost her position at HSBC when the bank experienced a bank run. 27. When the couple returned to the home of Respondent’s parents, Respondent constantly reminded the Petitioner that they can live off his parents who can afford to support them anyway and that Petitioner should just abandon the idea of moving into their own family home. 28. In a last ditch effort to save her marriage, the Petitioner convinced the Respondent to undergo marriage counseling sometime during the month of November 2003. 29. Petitioner brought him to Dr. Jimmy Tan, a psychologist, who not only counseled the couple until July of 2004 but also made a psychological evaluation and assessment of the Respondent at the request of the Petitioner and with the knowledge and consent of the former that his wife would receive a copy of the doctor’s findings. 30. The psychological evaluation and assessment issued by Dr. Tan on 21 June 2004, revealed that the Respondent is suffering from a dependent personality disorder which is serious, incurable and existing prior to the union between the two, rendering him incapable of performing the essential marital obligations, the

features of which are (1) difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others, especially Respondent’s mother, (2) needs others to assume responsibility for the major areas of his life (3) has difficulty initiating work or doing things on his or her own, (4) feels

uncomfortable

or

helpless

when

alone

because

of

exaggerated fears of being unable to care for himself or herself, (5) is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take care of himself or herself, and (6) an overwhelming lack of interest to take responsibility for his actions and his life. 31. As

Petitioner

could

no

longer

bear

the

emotional

and

psychological stress brought about by Respondent’s mentality and behavior, she left the home of her parents-in-law to live on her own sometime in September 2004. 32. As found even by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in a decision they released concerning the so-called union between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 9 March 2006 penned by a Fr. Rodolfo Dacanay, S.J., the Respondent manifested a simple but deep-seated aversion to performing his marital obligations as he failed to provide the Petitioner

with

the

companionship,

respect,

mutual

help,

support, and care required by law as he decided to provide the

same to his mother. The said decision goes on to state that the inability of the Respondent 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.

III. ISSUES TO BE TRIED AND RESOLVED The Petitioner proposes the following issues to be tried and resolved by this Honorable Court:

1. Whether or not the Respondent has failed to comply with the essential marital obligations stated in Article 68 of the Family Code; 2. If the Respondent has failed to comply with the essential marital obligations stated in Article 68 of the Family Code, whether or not such failure was due to psychological incapacity which is grave, serious and incurable and existing at the time of the marriage, though only manifesting itself during the marriage.

IV. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED The Petitioner will present the following documents 1. Marriage Certificate between Eunice Cruz-Santiago and Michael Santiago made on 10 January 2002. 2. Certificate of Employment of Michael Santiago from Santiago Corporation issued on 4 September 2001. 3. Certificate of Employment of Eunice-Cruz Santiago from HSBC issued in 2002. 4. Deed of Sale over No. 32 Maya St., Corinthian Gardens, Quezon City purchased by Michael Santiago's mother on 8 January 2003. 5. Psychological Evaluation and Assessment of Michael Santiago made by Dr. Jimmy Tan on 21 June 2004. 6. Decision of National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal penned by Fr. Rodolfo Dacanay, S.J. on 9 March 2006. 7. Other documents as may be determined to be relevant to the case during the course of trial.

V. WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED The Petitioner will present the following witnesses:

1. Eunice Cruz-Santiago will testify as to truthfulness of her allegations in the petition, particularly the breakdown of her union with Michael Santiago because of the latter's psychological incapacity. 2. Dr. Jimmy Tan will testify as to the truthfulness of his Psychological Evaluation and Assessment of Michael Santiago made on 21 June 2004. He will also testify as to how serious Michael Santiago's psychological condition is, what he believes is the root cause of such condition and how it has manifested itself in the union between Michael Santiago and Eunice CruzSantiago. 3. Corazon Ayala-Santiago, mother of Respondent, will testify as to the methods, schemes, and ways in which she helped her son before and during the marriage. She will also testify as to the nature of her relationship with her son and how the latter was brought up in order to show the root cause of Respondent’s psychological condition.

4. Other witnesses as may be determined to be relevant to the case during the course of trial.

VI. AVAILABLE DATES FOR TRIAL The Petitioner respectfully requests that the trial dates be agreed upon in open court at such dates and time convenient to the parties and the calendar of this Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that the foregoing Pre-Trial Brief be duly noted.

Makati City, 12 November 2012. (SGD.) ALISON KAW Counsel for Petitioner Address: #11 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City Contact Nos.: (054) 887-1476; 0917-449-3285 Roll No. 97871 PTR No. 024542; 1/10/09; Makati City IBP No. 007308; 12/20/09; Makati Chapter (SGD.) MATTHEW ONG Counsel for Petitioner Address: #23 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City Contact Nos.: (054) 887-1234; 0917-468-5475 Roll No. 97963 PTR No. 0257442; 3/11/08; Makati City IBP No. 478521; 2/2/09; Makati Chapter

(SGD.) SERGIO PINLAC Counsel for Petitioner Address: #8 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City Contact Nos.: (054) 897-3256; 0918-147-6985 Roll No. 85213 PTR No. 0285242; 5/4/08; Makati City IBP No. 478521; 5/2/09; Makati Chapter (SGD.) MARTIN UY Counsel for Petitioner Address: #35 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City Contact Nos.: (054) 887-6978; 0917-485-5354 Roll No. 97413 PTR No. 0258712; 8/11/08; Makati City IBP No. 198621; 6/8/09; Makati Chapter (SGD.) DIANNA WILWAYCO Counsel for Petitioner Address: #16 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City Contact Nos.: (054) 897-1785; 0916-369-8523 Roll No. 32184 PTR No. 0951242; 10/8/08; Makati City IBP No. 478521; 11/7/09; Makati Chapter Copy furnished: SAMSON MANGCO FERNANDO CRUZ GARCIA & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondent Address: 10/F Commerce Centre, Valero St., Salcedo Village, Makati Contact Nos.: (081) 874-1478 to 90 EXPLANATION Service of this petition is by registered mail instead of personal service because of lack of messengerial aide to make personal service. (SGD.) ALISON KAW (SGD.) MATTHEW ONG (SGD.) SERGIO PINLAC (SGD.) MARTIN UY

(SGD.) DIANNA WILWAYCO Counsels for Petitioner AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL I, Rodel Ardales, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say: That I am the messenger of Attys. Kaw, Ong, Pinlac, Uy and Wilwayco, counsels for petitioner in the case entitled “Cruz-Santiago v. Santiago”, Civil Case No. 168168, and as such messenger I served upon the counsels of the adverse party, the petition filed in said case: By depositing the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the counsels at their office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 12th day of November 2012, as shown by Registry No. 12345 dated 12 November 2012 of the post office of Makati City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 12th day of November 2012 at Makati City. (SGD.) RODEL ARDALES Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 12th day of November 2012 at Makati City, affiant exhibiting to me her Driver's License No. 12345852515 which will expire on April 26, 2014. (SGD.) MICHAEL DELA CRUZ Notary Public Makati City Doc. No. _______; Page No. _______; Book No. _______; Series of 2012.