Antonio Conejos

III-B

Legal Forms Finals

Pre-trial brief for Petitioner

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 156
MAKATI CITY
PAULA ABARQUEZ FLORES
Petitioner,
-versus-

Civil Case No. 2002

Petition for Nullity of Marriage
with Application for Temporary
Protection Order

PAOLO FLORES,
Respondent,
x------------------------x

PETITION FOR NULLITY OF MARRIAGE WITH

APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER
PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully comes before this Honorable Court
and submits the following:
I. PARTIES:

1. Petitioner is a Filipino citizen, of legal age and married to respondent with

address at 35 Family Way, Makati City.
2. Respondent is a Filipino citizen, of legal age, and married to petitioner with
address at 120 Calle Luz, Makati City.

II. ALLEGATIONS:
3. Petitioner and respondent have known each other for years, having met at a
high school soiree between their respective schools. Eventually they went to the
same college, University of Asia and Australia and the Pacific (UAAP). While in
their second year at college, the parties entered into a relationship which would
culminate in marriage 4 years after they graduated from school
4. The parties were legally wed by Fr. Gabriel Dimacali in Santuario de San
Antonio Church, Forbes Park, on April 1, 1990. A copy of the marriage contract is
attached as ANNEX A.
5. On their wedding night, respondent refused to make to love to his wife. This
aberrant behaviour continued through their honeymoon. Indeed, up to the
present time respondent and petitioner have not engaged in sexual intercourse.
Respondent insists that they sleep in separate rooms.
6. While respondent refused to sleep with his wife, he has constantly subjected
her to physical violence, slapping, kicking and pushing her while they are in the
family home.
7. Moreover, respondent from the beginning of the marriage up to the present
refuses to work or engage in any meaningful profession. He claims he is a
professional pool player. This past time entails the respondent daily going to pool
clubs and making bets with the people there that he can defeat them in a game
of pool. Unfortunately respondent is far from being a skilled player and he often
losses these bets. As such, respondents income is intermittent and sporadic at
best.
8. Given respondents sorry state, it has been petitioner who has served as the
main bread winner of the family. She is the store manager of the Greenbelt
Branch of Cream Puffs & Muffins, Etc. Her income from her job is often

insufficient to meet the basic daily needs of the family. Attached as ANNEX B is a
copy of respondents wage receipts, as certified by respondents supervisor at
Cream Puffs & Muffins, Etc.
9. Distraught over her husbands abject failure to meet his marital obligations and
duties, petitioner in June 1993 began an affair with a close friend from college.
The result of this affair was the child Gino, born in 1995.
10. Despite petitioners best efforts, the marriage of the parties continued to
deteriorate. Finally, in 1999 petitioner could no longer tolerate and subject herself
to respondents lack of interest in physical intimacy, violence and vagabond
ways. She left the couples house, taking Gino with her, and began to reside at
35 Family Way, Makati City.
11. Ever since the couple separated in fact, respondent has threatened petitioner
with physical violence if she did not return to live with him again. Respondent has
often been seen driving by petitioners new house and if he is seen by petitioner,
he makes threatening gestures such as slashing his throat with his finger.

III. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: RESPONDENT IS

PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO UNDERTAKE AND
PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS OF
MARRIAGE. THUS THE MARRIAGE OF THE PARTIES SHOULD
BE DECLARED A NULLITY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE
FAMILY CODE.
12. Article 36 of the Family Code provides that if a party to a marriage is
psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, such marriage is void.

13. Respondent has manifested this psychological incapacity by the following

continuous, aberrant behaviour: repeated refusal to engage in intercourse with
the petitioner, continuous violence directed by respondent against the petitioner
and respondents failure to secure a steady occupation to support his family.

IV. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: PETITIONER SHOULD BE

AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD AS THIS WOULD BE
IN THE LATTERS BEST INTEREST.
13. The perennial mandate of the law is to ensure the best interest of the child.
Allowing the child to be in the custody of the respondent would allow the child to
witness first hand violence, apathy and sloth. Such are not the characteristics
that will encourage the child to grow towards a virtuous life.
14. The child is in much better care in the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner
has consistently shown that she is able to support the child and provide him with
a loving and caring home environment.

V. ISSUANCE OF PROTECTION ORDERS PURSUANT TO RA

9262
15. Respondents behaviour since the de facto separation has only further
reinforced petitioners belief that he is a violent, disturbed individual. Respondent
has forcefully insisted, with the threat of violence, that petitioner return home.
Such behaviour frightens the petitioner as she is sure her husband will indeed
eventually resort to violence to force her to begin living with him again.
16. As provided for in Section 5 of RA 9262, threats of violence against women or
their children already constitutes the crime of violence against women or their
children. Moreover, placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical
harm; also already constitutes the crime of violence against women or their

children. Respondent has reiterated threats of violence against the petitioner and
caused petitioner to fear that physical harm is imminent.
17. Section 8 of RA 9262 provides that a Protection Order may be issued by the
Court for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against a woman or
her child specified in Section 5 of RA 9262 and granting other necessary relief.
18. Petitioner is entitled to issuance of a Permanent Protective Order given
respondents constant threat of violence against her and as his repeated actions
have caused petitioner to fear imminent physical harm will be visited upon her. As
provided in Section 8 of RA 9262, such Permanent Protective Order may prohibit,
inter alia Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing,
personally or through another, any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 of this Act;
Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting
or otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, considering the above, it is respectfully prayed that:
1. Immediately upon the filing of the instant Petition,
1.1. The Honorable Court issue an ex parte

Temporary Protection Order

prohibiting respondent from from threatening to commit or committing,

personally or through another, any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 of
RA 9262 and prohibiting respondent from harassing, annoying,
telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner,
directly or indirectly
1.2. After due hearing, convert the Temporary Protection Order into a
Permanent Protection Order.

2. After due hearing of the petition, this Honorable Court render judgment:
2.1. Declaring the nullity of the marriage between the parties based on
respondents psychological incapacity.
2.2. Awarding permanent custody of the child to the petitioner.
2.3. Pursuant to the grant of custody set forth in Section 8 of RA 9262, to
order respondent to pay petitioner support in such amount and duration
as the Court deems just and fair.
3. Petitioner finally prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable
under the circumstances.
Makati City: October 1, 2003.
ANDREA FABREGAS
Counsel for the Petitioner
No. 65, Reliant Building
San Francisco St., Makati City
IBP No. 88-88-88-88, 01/31/05, Makati City
PTR No. 99-99-99-99, 01/31/05, Makati City
Roll of Attorney No. 889988
MCLE Cert. No. 97153

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, PAULA ABARQUEZ FLORES, Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of Makati
City, depose and state under oath:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above-captioned case;
2. That I caused the preparation and filing of this Petition and have read the
allegations therein, which I confirm to be true and correct of my own personal
knowledge;
3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues before any other Court or tribunal, other than the above-captioned case;
4. That should I learn about a similar action or proceeding having been filed or
pending before any other Court or tribunal, I will notify this Honorable Court of the
same within five (5) days from such notice.
In witness hereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 1 October 2003 at Makati
City, Philippines.
PAULA ABARQUEZ FLORES
Affiant
CTC No. 010718 12/18/03
Subscribed and Sworn to before me in Makati City, Philippines, this 1 October
2003.
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2008

GREGOR SAMSA
Notary Public
Until 31 December 2008
Atty. Roll No. 97153
IBP No. 05053 05-19-2007
PTR No. 342143 08-20-2007
MCLE Cert. No. 3837645