Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Fourth Judicial Region
Branch ___
Rosario, Batangas

AAA,
Petitioner,

-versus-

Civil Case No. _______

For: Nullity of Marriage

BBB,
Respondent.
x-----------------x

PETITION

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully declares that:
1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, married and with residence and
postal address at ______, Batangas, where she may be served with
summons and other processes of this Honorable Court;
2. Respondent is of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of ____
Pasay City, where he may be served with summons and other
processes of this Honorable Court;
3. Petitioner and Respondent were joined in marital union on May 14,
2001, as evidenced by a copy of their Certificate of Marriage herein
attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex A;

4. Out of their marital union, they were blessed with a son, CCC, who
was born on April 1, 2004. A faithful reproduction of their Certificated
of Live Birth are hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as
Annex B;
5. In 1998 , Petitioner met Respondent when the former was employed
by XXX as Operations Manager. At this time, Respondent had been
working in the same company for two years already. The Parties were
assigned to a common project and thus communicated on a regular
basis.
6. The Parties soon developed fondness for each other and Respondent
started courting Petitioner through text messages. A month after,
Petitioner agreed to be Respondents girlfriend.
7. Not long after, Respondent confessed to Petitioner that he was
already engaged to another woman even before he courted the latter.
In response, Petitioner ended the relationship as she thought
Respondent was deceitful. However, the Parties got back together
after Respondent told Petitioner that he chose the latter over his
former girlfriend.
8. In December 2009, the Parties started living together as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage to save on rent expense. As
expected, the Parties started having sexual intimacy, which led to
pregnancy shortly thereafter. The Parties told their respective parents
about the pregnancy and asked for their blessing in marriage.
9. During the first month of being husband and wife, the Parties were
happy together. Unbeknownst to Petitioner, however, Respondent
continued meeting with his ex-girlfriend.
10.
Thereafter, the Parties had a series of arguments over various
matters including money and the rumors about Respondent being
seen with his ex-girlfriend.
11.
Furthermore, Petitioner had suffered bouts of fatigue and
discontent in adjusting from being a career woman to becoming a
plain housewife. On the other hand, Respondent constantly worked
overtime to earn enough money for their sustenance.
12.
Later on, Petitioner asked for Respondents consent to work
again. However, Respondent refused to allow Petitioner from going
back to work after hearing remarks from their neighbor that Petitioner

Gojar vs. Gojar

Petition

Page 2 of 8

will earn more money than Respondent and will thus dominate their
home.
13.
Meanwhile, Petitioners discontent grew from having difficulties
making ends meet and not having any savings. For this reason,
Petitioner constantly picked a fight with Respondent. After a
discussion between Respondent and his mother, Respondent had
agreed to allow Petitioner to go back to work.
14.
Thus, the Parties entrusted the care of their son to
Respondents mother. The Parties had alternately visited their child
as per their agreement.
15.
Although Petitioner had heard rumors that Respondent was
seeing his ex-girlfriend and had read exchange of text messages
between them, Petitioner brushed these aside.
16.
However, many people also confirmed seeing Respondent with
his former girlfriend when Petitioner was heavily pregnant with their
son. Petitioner had confronted Respondent about the reports she
received, but the latter denied them. This was the reason for the
repeated quarrels between the Parties.
17.
In December 2005, Petitioner got an offer to work in London,
United Kingdom. With the intention to augment the family finances
and to save the Parties deteriorating marital relations, Petitioner told
Respondent about the matter and the latter readily agreed.
18.
In May 2006, Petitioner flew to the UK and regularly got in
touch with Respondent. However, the Parties constantly quarreled
about Petitioners discovery that Respondent had not been regularly
visiting their son and had claimed that he always worked overtime.
After verification, Petitioner learned that Respondent had in fact been
working overtime, but Newton Electrical Company later reduced
allowance of overtime work for its employees.
19.
To clarify, Petitioner called up Respondent, but was dismayed to
hear bar music and noise from people who sounded drunk. To catch
Respondent, Petitioner called up some of Respondents friends, who
admitted that they were indeed in a bar drinking alcohol and that they
were in the company of some young women.
20.
Due to emotional stress and dejection, Petitioner hastily
returned to the Philippines in May 2007 to know what Respondent
was in fact doing. Upon arrival, Petitioner and Respondent had a

Gojar vs. Gojar

Petition

Page 3 of 8

heated argument about Respondents visiting bars with women and

not regularly visiting their son.
21.
Petitioner initially wanted to forego her job in UAE to save the
marriage, but changed her mind after finding out that Respondent
was having an affair with another woman.
22.
When Petitioner returned to UAE, she frequently called
Respondent to monitor his activities and encouraged him to change
his ways in order to save their marriage. However, Respondent
received it negatively and they constantly had heated arguments.
23.
A month later, Petitioner called up Respondent and found out
that the latter was at a bar drinking alcohol with his friends. Thus,
Petitioner became verbally aggressive to Respondent. In a sudden
burst of anger, Respondent blurted that they should just go separate
ways. Petitioner was astounded by Respondents remarks and with
the desire to save their marriage, she returned home for a 30-day
vacation.
24.
For the first two weeks, Petitioner spent her time with
Respondent and their son. Then, Petitioner spent the remaining two
weeks with her family in YYY. Before Petitioners flight back to the
UK, the Parties had formally agreed to part ways. Up until the
present, the Parties continue to live separately from each other.
25.
In March 2009, Respondents elder sister communicated to
Petitioner that Respondent had a fight with their mother and took their
son to his rented apartment in Valenzuela, while Respondent was
under the influence of alcohol. After confirmation of the incident,
Petitioner arranged the transfer of her sons physical care to her
parents in Batangas.
26.
The Parties had stopped communicating with each other, and
any attempt to revive their communication failed.
27.
In January 2010, Petitioner returned to the UK and indirectly
communicated with Respondent about their son through the formers
parents. Petitioner and Respondent had agreed that the latter will visit
their son in YYY and provide child support every month.
28.
Respondent had kept his promise of providing financial support.
Later on, however, Respondent became remiss in visiting their son
and in giving regular financial support. Thus, Petitioner made efforts
for her and Respondent to have a written agreement on child support.
Gojar vs. Gojar
Petition

Page 4 of 8

29.
Meanwhile, Petitioner had a disagreement with her mother and
was constrained to transfer her sons care back to her in-laws
(Respondents parents).
30.
Upon Petitioners return to the UK, she saw Respondents
Facebook account with pictures of the latter with another woman on
different locations while they were out on dates. At this stage,
Petitioner had lost interest in knowing more details about
Respondents extramarital affairs.
31.
In spite of having a child support agreement in place,
Respondent had failed to comply with his obligation to his son, but
spent much money for his mistress.
32.
Petitioner, convinced of the futility of her efforts, decided that
she wants and deserves to start life anew with feelings of hope for a
brighter future since there is no hope that Respondent can cope up
with his obligations as husband;
33.
Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a
psychological evaluation on the ability of Respondent to cope up with
the essential obligations of marriage. After evaluation, both Petitioner
and Respondent were found to be psychologically incapacitated to
perform their essential marital obligations. A copy of the
Psychological Evaluation Report is hereto attached and made an
integral part hereof as Annex C.
34.
Petitioner was found to be suffering from Passive-Aggressive
Personality Disorder with Dependent Personality Features,
manifested in: her pervasive pattern of passive and submissive
behavior to gain acceptance; her consistent complaints of personal
misfortune but refused to remove herself from the unhealthy
relationship; her switch between hostile defiance and contrition; her
expression of anger and dissatisfaction in subtle ways for fear of
being rejected and criticized; her lack of self-confidence and
assertiveness; her difficulty in making everyday decisions for herself
and relied on others in making major decisions for herself; her
tolerance of demanding and abusive spouse to sustain her emotional
dependency; and her inability to express disagreement with others for
fear of loss of support and recognition. borne from submitted herself
to a psychological test in relation to her marriage. These traits reveal
her psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the New Family Code
of the Philippines.
35.
On the other hand, Respondent was found to be suffering from
Dependent Personality Disorder with some Anti-Social and
Gojar vs. Gojar
Petition

Page 5 of 8

Narcissistic Features, manifested in: his lack of confidence and being

unreceptive; his fear of being alone or rejected; being clingy on other
people; his gullibility in decision-making; his need for extramarital
relationship as source of love and support; his preference of
maintaining hedonistic lifestyle with his friends; his consistent
irresponsible behavior towards his wife and son; his lack of empathy
and unwillingness to recognize the feelings and needs of others;
dispositions without consideration of the feelings of Petitioner; and
lack of remorse for the offenses he had committed on Petitioner and
their son.
36.
The actions of both Petitioner and Respondent completely and
irrevocably destroyed their family and marriage. All of the above are
contrary to the duties and responsibilities of a husband to his wife and
vice versa, which is to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity.
37.
Ultimately, the actions of Petitioner and Respondent show their
incapacities to comply with their obligations as husband and wife to
each other. Their actions are also clear signs of their psychological
incapacities which are grave, serious and incurable and existed prior
to the marriage and became manifest during the marriage. The
Parties psychological defects did not cease and destroyed the
essence of family and marriage contemplated in the Family Code and
the Constitution.
38.
Lastly, Petitioner and Respondent had not acquired real
properties during their marriage as their income were used to support
the family.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after trial, judgment
be rendered by this Honorable Court declaring that the marriage
between Petitioner and Respondent is VOID AB INITIO by reason of
their respective psychological incapacities to perform essential
marital obligations. It is likewise prayed that if and when the parties
are able to enter into an extrajudicial settlement as to custody and
joint parenting, the same be adopted by this Honorable Court and in
the absence thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and
obligations as parents be adjudicated by this Honorable Court.
Petitioner prays for such other reliefs as may be deemed just
and equitable under the circumstances.
Gojar vs. Gojar
Petition

Page 6 of 8

Makati City for Rosario, Batangas, October 12, 2016.

KGM LEGAL SERVICES

Counsel for Petitioner
G/F Gervacia Center, 152 Amorsolo St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel. No. (02) 812-3277
By:

ATTY. KATRINA G. MANIQUIS

Roll of Attorney No. 63317
IBP No. 1037255/9-March-16/Makati City
PTR No. 5367800/02-Feb-16/Makati City
MCLE No. V-00610423/ 09/09/15
E-mail: km@kgmlegal.ph
Mobile No. 09989519643

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

Gojar vs. Gojar
Petition

Page 7 of 8

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, AAA, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance with
law, depose and state that:
1. I am the Petitioner in the above-stated case;
2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are
true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of
copies of documents and records in my possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving
the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

AAA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________________
at __________________________, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to
me her Philippine Passport No. 1234567 issued on ______ at
_______ and valid until _______.

Doc. No. ___;

Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2016.

Gojar vs. Gojar

Petition

Page 8 of 8