Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Zamboanga City
Branch 15
Nicole Anne Aceberos,
Petitioner,
-Versus-

Civil Case No._______

For: Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage

John Michael Badil,

Respondent.
X-------------------------------------------------------------X
PETITION

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., San Juan City while respondent is
likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 91
Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon 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 December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino
Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay Quezon City, a copy of their
marriage certificate is hereto attached as Annex A;

3 A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G.

Bernardo, aged 6 years old, a copy of his Certificate of
Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;
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, petitioner had a girlfriend, Cristina,
who was respondents 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 attachments to one another, they frequently
indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in
respondents 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 petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and

followers of the conservative mater dei, came to know
about respondents 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
petitioners 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 respondents 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.
11This arrangement went on until petitioners 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.

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

taking in odd jobs to support himself and his family. In
2006, it was respondents turn to go abroad to work in
Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to communicate
thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.
13Petitioner 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 camels back, so to speak.
14 To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no
hope for reconciliation.
15Petitioner, 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 ;

17Petitioner 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;
18That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious
and incurable and existed prior to the marriage and
became manifest during its existence;
19That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real
properties in the course of their marriage.
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.
San Juan. May 12, 2009
Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDESGARCIA

Counsel for Petitioner

Wheels Executive Suites
Wheels Bldg., E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave.,
Quezon City
IBP No. 764814 dtd. 01-07-09Pasig
City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/09/ Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2008
VERIFICATION

I, BANJO C. BERNARDO, of legal age, under oath, states:

01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;
02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of
my own personal knowledge;

Page 05.
03. 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.

BENJO C. BERNARDO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of May 2009,

affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.

Doc. No. ________

Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2009.