Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Second Judicial Region
BRANCH ____
Aparri, Cagayan
DENIS AQUINO ANTONIO,
Petitioner,
CIVIL CASE NO. ____________
-versus- For: DECLARATION OF NULLITY
OF MARRIAGE
SUSAN FLORES GUILLERMO,
Respondent.
x----------------------x
PETITION
PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:
1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to the
respondent and a resident of Purok 6, Barangay Rebecca, Gonzaga,
Cagayan.1
2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen,
married to the petitioner and a resident of Brgy. Naruangan, Tuao
East, Cagayan where she may be served with summons, orders,
notices and other court processes.
3. Petitioner and respondent exchanged their marital vows in a
Civil Wedding, on December 16, 2013 at the Office of the Mayor in
Tuao, Cagayan, as evidenced by a Marriage Certificate.2
4. The parties were not blessed with any child during their
wedlock.
5. As far as the petitioner is aware, the parties have not
acquired, and do not presently have, any common properties, which
could be the subject of liquidation, partition and distribution
proceedings.
1
As evidenced by the Certification issued by the Punong Barangay of Barangay Rebecca, Gonzaga
Cagayan, Vicinity Map of the petitioner’s residence, Driver’s License and Sworn
Statement/Declaration of counsel, which are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “A”, “B”,
“C”, and “D”, respectively.
2
A copy of the parties’ Marriage Certificate is hereto attached and marked as Annex “E”.
2
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
Respondent and Petitioner are psychologically
incapacitated to comply with essential marital
obligations.
6. Petitioner and respondent were introduced to each other by
petitioner’s older sister, who lives with respondent in the same
boarding house in Manila.
7. Their friendship bloomed and their feelings for each other
gradually developed. Petitioner and respondent were often left
together in the boarding house, though they never went out for a date,
they were spending time cooking and eating together, and were
compatible in all things.
8. Petitioner went back to his work as a seafarer, and when he
went home in December 2013, they got married in a civil wedding.
9. After which, they lived together in the respondent’s house,
had a happy life at first, living with their supportive in-laws.
10. However, the petitioner had to go back to work again as a
seafarer. While he was at work, respondent seldomly answers his call,
this instance was repeated many times.
11. When the petitioner went home for vacation, he bought a
treshing machine for his father-in-law, to use in the field, gave money
to her aunt to buy a tricycle, and gave the respondent and her aunt
money to start an Ukay-ukay business.
12. The petitioner thought all is well, however, he found out
that they were suffering from financial constraint when petitioner had
to go back to work, because the respondent could not give her
anything when he needed money for medical expenses.
13. In addition to this, petitioner found out that the respondent
was having an affair with her ex-boyfriend, who is already married.
The wife of the guy filed a complaint in their barangay, while on the
side of the respondent, she reconciled with the petitioner and asked for
a second chance.
14. The petitioner then went back to work again. While on
board, they had disagreement because the petitioner was sending
money to his parents, and helping his nephews and nieces. The
respondent demanded that all money should be sent to her.
3
15. While they were in long distance relationship, respondent
alleged that petitioner has an illicit affair. However, petitioner found
out that it was the respondent who continued her illicit affair with her
ex-boyfriend.
16. The circumstance led to losing trust to each other, their
responsibility towards each others seemed to have vanished and their
love seemed to have been shattered. The respondent is now living
with her ex-boyfriend, and out of this relationship, they begot one
child.
17. Finding no worth to continue living with her, whose
behavior was solely for her own selfish interest, with no intent to
create and maintain a cohesive and harmonious family, the petitioner
decided to move on and enjoy the beauty of life without her in the
picture. Thus, the instant Petition.
18. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kalaw v. Fernandez
emphasized that “in the task of ascertaining the presence of
psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the
courts, which are concededly not endowed with expertise in the field
of psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions of experts in
order to inform themselves on the matter, and thus enable themselves
to arrive at an intelligent and judicious judgment.”3
19. Thus, the Petitioner had engaged the services of Dr.
Evageline E. Fajardo., clinical psychologist, for the determination
of psychiatric evaluation of both parties.
19. 1 Based on the results of the psychological tests and
interview on the petitioner and respondent as well as based on
the background data gathered and marital history of the parties,
the findings of Dr. Fajardofound both respondent and petitioner
to be psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their essential
marital obligations.
19.1.1 This finding is in line with the
Supreme Court’s decision in Republic of the Philippines
vs. Court of Appeals and Molina4, in what has come to be
known as the Molina Doctrine, where it was held that in
cases of psychological incapacity, it must be:
a) Medically or clinically
identified;
3
G.R. No. 166357, 14 January 2015.
4
G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997; 268 SCRA 191.
4
b) Proven to be existing at the
time of the celebration of
the marriage;
c) Shown to be medically or
clinically permanent or
incurable; and
d) Such illness must be grave
enough to bring about the
disability of the party to
assume the essential marital
obligations.
19.2 The marital case study indicated that the
Respondent and Petitioner showed a medically or clinically
identified impairment in their relationship. They had a
personality disorder called MIXED PERSONALITY
DISORDER. A person with Mixed Personality Disorder have
failures to fulfill their major obligations such as financial
obligations, moral obligations, guidance, or even recreational
aspect to their family, resulting to social, marital, or
interpersonal problems. 5
The petitioner and respondent had committed a mistake,
they never developed guilt feelings or remorse to their
behavior.
19. 3 Their personality disorders were proven to be
existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, even
prior thereto, when Dr. Fajardo opined that:
“The personality disorder on the petitioner and
respondent speaks of antecedence, as it has early onset,
with an enduring pattern and behavior that deviate
markedly from the expectations of individual’s culture.”
19.4 Moreover, Dr. Fajardo believes that their illness is
grave enough as they were not able to carry out the normative
and ordinary duties of marriage and family shouldered by any
average spouses existing in ordinary conditions. They just can’t
perform their duties and obligations as a husband and wife as
they entered into marriage without knowledge, skills, and
attitude enough to perform their responsibilities.
5
As discussed by Dr. Evangeline E. Fajardo in her Psychiatric Evaluation Report, a copy of which is
hereto attached and marked as Annex “F”.
5
19.5 Finally, from Dr. Fajardo’s point of view,
respondent and petitioner’s condition is medically or clinically
permanent or incurable, as individuals with this disorder are
far more likely to refuse psychiatric help and deny the problems
due to their lack of insight. Thus, they are unmotivated to
treatment and impervious to recovery.
20. Reconciliation of the parties is impossible after the
stressful events they went through.
21. Although petitioner may also show signs of
psychological incapacity, he has suffered so much under his marriage
with the respondent and could not anymore bear and further withstand
the prejudice and sacrifices as it has greatly affected him morally and
even his personal well-being.
22. The personality disorder that respondent and petitioner
shows demonstrate utter lack of sensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance of their marriage and this appears to be
grave, medically and clinically permanent and incurable hence, both
Respondent and Petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential obligations of marriage embodied in Article 36 of
the Family Code of the Philippines. Their failure to overcome this
serious psychological and emotional disorder has created an
environment that is unacceptable and demeaning to the Petitioner, and
has set a way of life that is inimical to the establishment of a happy,
peaceful and united family.
23. It, thus, appears that it will be for the best interest of both
parties that their marriage be declared null and void.
24. To substantiate the allegations of the petitioner, the
following witnesses will testify in accordance with their respective
judicial affidavits, to wit:
a. Denis Antonio (Petitioner) will testify on the facts and
circumstance of her marriage with the respondent. He
will substantiate his claims of psychological
incapacity to perform essential marital obligation on
the part of the respondent;
b. Jovy Antonio will corroborate the testimony of the
petitioner on facts which she has personal knowledge
relative to the marriage of petitioner and respondent;
and
c. Dr. Evangeline E. Fajardo will testify on the result of
her psychiatric evaluation and findings of
psychological incapacity to perform essential marital
obligation both of respondent and petitioner.
6
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, above premises considered and after trial on
the issues, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to
render judgment declaring the marriage between the Petitioner and
Respondent as null and void ab initio on ground of
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY as provided under Article 36
of the Family Code.
Other reliefs/remedies as may be just and equitable under the
circumstances are likewise prayed for.
Gonzaga, Cagayan. January __, 2023.
RAMSES S. PERALTA
Counsel for the Petitioner
Roll No. 55350
IBP Lifetime Member No. 012531/Cagayan Chapter
PTR OR No. 8884319/ January 4, 2019/Gonzaga, Cagayan
MCLE-Compliance No. VI-0007458
Valid until April 14, 2022
G/F, Balay Bisita II,
National Highway corner Mabini St., Smart,
Gonzaga, Cagayan
Contact No. 09954362595
E-mail add: [email protected]
Copy furnished:
THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR
Aparri, Cagayan
