Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th Judicial Region
BRANCH ____
Cebu City

IMELDA M. DAÑO-PANGANDOYON,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. _______________
-versus- For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

EDU JAMES L. PANGANDOYON,

Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------/

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF IMELDA M. DAÑO-PANGANDOYON, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:

1. Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino, and the wife of defendant. She resides at
452-C Rosal St., Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. She may be served court
processes through: Atty. Janice S. Lape at Unit 9, Albulario Bldg. II, Gen.
Maxilom Ave., Cebu City;

2. Defendant Edu James L. Pangandoyon (herein later referred to as “Edu”) is

of legal age, Filipino and a resident of No. Kamputhaw, Purok 3 Upper,
Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, where he may be served court processes;

3. That parties have known each since the time they were acquainted with each
other during the barangay fiesta when Plaintiff was still 14 years old. Parties
have been neighbors as well;

4. They continued their friendship for few months until they became a couple
after one year. Plaintiff was still a high school student at 14 years old while
Defendant was in college;

5. The relationship continued and Plaintiff got pregnant. She was already on her
way to parenthood during her graduation ceremony around year 2005;

6. Plaintiff finished a degree in nursing at CCMC College. Defendant, on the

other hand, struggled with his studies by shifting courses every so often. But
with Plaintiff’s encouragement, he was able to finish a course in Information
Technology after 8 years in college;

1
7. Parties informed their respective parents of the plan to get married before the
birth of their child. However, Plaintiff’s family were against the planned union,
in fact, Plaintiff’s parents did not attend the ceremony;

8. Her father strongly disagreed with the idea of marrying the Defendant because
her father was able to witness the character and personality of Defendant. But
her father could not do anything since Plaintiff was already of legal age;

9. The parents of Defendant were very supportive. His father welcomed Plaintiff
in their home. His mother who was then working abroad was also supportive
of their relationship. They tolerated the couple because they believed that
Plaintiff could be of help in reforming the Defendant;

10. Plaintiff, with the blessing of Defendant’s parents, moved into the house of the
latter in Gorordo sometime on February 2005;

11. They wed under civil rites at the Municipal Trial Court Branch 4 of Cebu City
on March 17, 2006. A copy of their Marriage Certificate is hereto attached as
Annex “A”;

12. While Plaintiff was on her family way, she fortunately found a job as charge
nurse at CCMC Hospital in order to save up for upcoming expenses during
childbirth;

13. Their child, baptized as Emily Beth D. Pangandoyon, was born on August 26,
2005. She was under the sole custody of Plaintiff while Defendant had
complete visitation rights. That was their set-up so that they could both attend
to their child alternately. Her birth certificate is hereto attached as Annex “B”;

14. Both parties were not yet gainfully employed when they started living together,
thus, both were entitled to an allowance from the monthly support sent by
Edu’s mother who is working/residing abroad;

15. Plaintiff thought that their marriage will be strengthened with the addition of
their daughter to the family. However, Plaintiff became devastated upon
learning that Edu was hesitant to admit paternity of their child when asked in
public and was not interested in taking time to bond with their daughter despite
having full visitation rights;

16. Defendant was a college graduate but never found the urge to look for gainful
employment. He merely consumed his time with the hobby of playing golf;

17. Plaintiff immediately got back to her job at the hospital. She often asked favors
from Defendant to take turns in looking after their newborn. The latter
frequently refused his obligation due to reasons such as lack of sleep, playing
golf or bonding with friends;

2
18. Defendant became a financial burden to Plaintiff and he even failed to comply
with his obligation to their child. He emotionally detached himself from us, but
Plaintiff made relentless efforts to draw him near to her and their child, such
as making plan for family outings or date night;

19. Despite Plaintiff’s actions, Defendant showed manifestations of unwillingness

to show reciprocity. He even refused to look after their child when Plaintiff is
at work. Thus, Plaintiff was forced to look for a day-time job as college
professor at USPF. She was also forced to hire a full-time nanny;

20. Plaintiff financially supported their child until she became assertive of her
marital right to demand financial and emotional support from Defendant. As a
result, the latter got annoyed. They started arguing;

21. Defendant started to lay hands on Plaintiff. The latter thought it was a normal
phase of married life since they were barely married for 1 year. The physical
abuse continued;

22. Every time Plaintiff goes to work, she tries her best to hide the bruises and
contusions. Until a time came when a few of her workmates noticed them.
That was the initial point when she opened about her marital struggles to her
workmates;

23. She received advise from her colleagues convincing her to leave Defendant
anyway the latter does not care about them but Plaintiff stood by her principle
of maintaining a complete family;

24. After the death of Plaintiff’s mother sometime 2007, she decided to move out
of Defendant’s house. She brought their daughter with her and it was the first
time they separated;

25. The separation lasted for only a month because Defendant suddenly showed
up at the university (USPF) where Plaintiff was working. Defendant threatened
to humiliate Plaintiff at work in case the latter refused to get back with him;

26. Defendant asked for a chance with a promise to change himself and
assurance that he will start looking for employment. Thus, parties got back
together;

27. However, the positive developments only lasted for 1 year. Defendant relieved
his unacceptable attitude. Parties fought regularly about several things;

28. Thereafter, sometime on 2008 Plaintiff suddenly decided to pack her

belongings and leave their home without bringing their daughter. She
purposely left their daughter to test if Defendant would be able to handle his
responsibility as a father;

3
 29. To Petitioner’s dismay, Defendant suddenly showed up at Plaintiff’s house
after a week. He turned-over the custody of their child to Plaintiff for good.
Thereafter, Defendant no longer intervened into the life and decisions of
Petitioner and her daughter unto this day;

30. At this point, plaintiff has realized that it is useless to remain in a marriage that
exists in name only. She has finally realized that defendant is psychologically
incapacitated to perform his marital obligations, both as a husband and father;

31. Such incapacity appears to be serious, incurable and has existed even at the
time of the marriage manifesting only after the celebration of their marriage;

32. Parties do not own any real or personal property. Plaintiff presently has
custody of their daughter. She has been constrained to seek the services of
counsel to represent her in this case. She will also incur, as she has started
to incur, litigation expenses of not less than Php 60,000.00.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that after trial, the marriage

between plaintiff and defendant be declared null and void ab initio under Art. 36 of the
New Family Code.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Cebu City, Philippines, April 12, 2019.

ELNAR SUELLO & LAPE LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 9, Albulario Bldg. II
Gen. Maxilom Ave., CebuCity

By:

DOMINIQUE T. ELNAR
ROLL NO. 38657
IBP NO. AR000111-12/14/17
PTR NO. 180333-1/10/18
MCLE V Compliance No.
Cebu City

JANICE S. LAPE
ROLL NO. 58930
IBP No. AR11250880 – Jan. 9, 2019
PTR No. 236472 – Jan. 9, 2019
MCLE V Compliance No. 0010588
Cebu City