Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Manila City
Branch 6784

ANGLEINA JOLIE
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. ___________

For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage

BRAD PITT,
Respondent.

X-------------------------X

P E T I T I O N

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of

143 Argonne St., Manila City while respondent is likewise of legal
age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St.
Project 8, Manila City, where she may be served with summons,
orders and other legal processes of this Honorable Court;

2. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having

been legally married on July 24, 2008 at Manila Cathedral, Manila,
a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”;
 3. During their cohabitation as husband and wife, petitioner
and the respondent begot three children, the first child named
CHELSEA PITT was born on 23 April 2008; the second child named
BEATRICE PITT was born on 10 June 2010; the third child named
WILLIAM PITT was born on 06 March October 2012. Copy of the
Certificates of Live Birth of their three children are hereto attached
as Annexes “B”, “C”, and “D” and made integral parts hereof;

4. In retrospect petitioner and respondent were childhood

friends, growing up in the same neighborhood in Project 8 and were
even schoolmates at St. Patrick School in high school. Back then,
respondent had a girlfriend, Cristina, who was respondent’s friend
as well. After he and Cristina broke up, he lived in with another
girlfriend, whom he found out was married. Frustrated, he returned
to his parents’ home and met respondent again after a long while.
This time, they were already college graduates and were both
scouting for employment. But as it was difficult to get an office job
then, they decided to be business partners by putting up a small
food cart business selling fish balls;

5. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise

attracted to each other physically. Although there was no emotional
attachment to one another, they frequently indulged in sexual
intimacies which resulted in respondent’s pregnancy. Petitioner did
not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl,
having had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support
their child;

6. When petitioner’s parents, who were devout catholics and

followers of the conservative mater dei, came to know about
respondent’s pregnancy, they prevailed upon petitioner to marry
respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in haste
and in a simple church ceremony;

7. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no

visible means of livelihood, the newly-weds lived with petitioner’s
parents. Their first month of being married was marred by frequent
fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other;

8. A month after getting married or in January 2003,

petitioner flew to California to work as caregiver. He however sent
money for respondent’s medical needs as she was about to give
birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent
felt uncomfortable at her in-laws’ home. She left and went back to
her parents;

9. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to

the Philippines and attempted to reconcile with respondent
especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to live again
with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from
time to time and giving financial support to their child;

10. Time went by with the parties living separately on their

own. It became convenient for both to live separately as they would
constantly fight when they are together. Soon petitioner got
employed with a construction job owned by his relatives.
Respondent too became gainfully employed. Distance and
separation drove both petitioner and respondent to have their
respective lovers;

11. This arrangement went on until petitioner’s student visa

was approved and he was slated to leave for the States sometime
September 2005. Before he left, he talked with respondent and
they both agreed that they will both use the time away from each
other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for
them to get back and live together as husband and wife when
petitioner comes back from his studies abroad;

12. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well,

taking in odd jobs to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was
respondent’s turn to go abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and
respondent used to communicate thru text messaging and they both
agreed to come home;

13. Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after,

respondent came home too. They both decided to try and live
together again as a family. Unfortunately, since both of them
distrust each other, they frequent arguments and disagreements.
Worse, petitioner found out that respondent had a boyfriend in
Taiwan, who had remained in touch with her. And worst,
respondent had not severed her relationship with him, thus, the guy
maintained communications with her. This was the last straw that
broke the camel’s back, so to speak;

14. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no

hope for reconciliation;

15. Petitioner, convinced of the futility of his efforts, decided

that he deserves to start life anew with feelings of hope for a
brighter future since there is obviously no hope that respondent can
cope up with her obligations as wife;

16. 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,
respondent was found to be psychologically incapacitated to
perform the essential marital obligations of marriage borne from her
lack of maturity, which affected her sense of rational judgment and
responsibility. These traits reveal her psychological incapacity under
Art. 36 of the New Family Code of the Philippines and is more
appropriately labeled “Anti-Social and Narcissistic personality
disorder;

17. Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a

nullity. Respondent showed no concern for her obligation towards
her family in violation of Art. 68 of the New Family Code which
provides that husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and
 support.. Petitioner is also filing this case under Art. 36 of the same
Code as the respondent manifested apparent personality disorder
and psychological dysfunction, i.e. her lack of effective sense of
rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise peculiar to infants,
by being psychologically immature and failing to perform her
responsibilities as wife;

18. That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious

and incurable and existed prior to the marriage and became
manifest during its existence;

19. Petitioner and respondent have acquired a mansion in

Forbes Park, five cars, Php 25 Million in the bank and an
Italian Restaurant in Makati City while their marriage subsist.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be
declared a nullity. It is likewise prayed that if and when parties are
able to enter into an extrajudicial settlement as to custody and joint
parenting, the same be adopted by this Court and in the absence
thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and obligations as
parents be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. We pray for such
other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises.

22 August 2017. Manila City.

Atty. FRANCIS HARVEY RODULFO

Counsel for Petitioner
IBP No. 764814 01-07-20 Manila City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/20/ Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II – 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2017
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, ANGELINA JOLIE, of legal age, under oath, states:

1. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have

caused the preparation of the same petition;

2. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same

petition of my own personal knowledge;

Page 05.

3. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against

forum shopping, I hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced
any other action or proceeding involving the same issues before the
Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
b) to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceedings is
pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal
or agency; c) If I should learned that similar action or proceeding
has been filed or is pending before such tribunals or bodies, I shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court of agency
where the original pleading and sworn certification have been filed.

ANGELINA JOLIE

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22ND day of

August 2017 at Manila, affiant exhibiting to me her SSS I.D. No. 4361
issued on March 26, 2013 at Makati.

Atty. FRANCIS HARVEY RODULFO

Doc. No. _______
Page No. _______
Book No. ______
Series of 2017.
Counsel for Petitioner
IBP No. 764814 01-07-20 Manila City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/20/ Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II – 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2017