REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

TENTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 32
SURIGAO CITY

Monica Reyes Santiago,

Petitioner,

Civil Case No. 00001

-versus- For: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage under Art. 36
of the Family Code
Adrian de Villa Santiago,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PETITION
COMES NOW petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and to this
Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

1. That petitioner Monica Reyes Santiago is of legal age, married, Filipino

and resident of 123-A Rizal Street, Surigao City;

2. That respondent Adrian de Villa Santiago is likewise of legal age,

married, Filipino and presently residing at 123-A Rizal Street, Surigao City;

3. That petitioner and respondent celebrated their marriage on February

14, 2008 before the Parish Church of San Nicolas de Tolentino, Surigao City,
certified true copy of their Marriage Certificate is attached and made integral part
hereof as Annex “A”;

4. That petitioner and respondent have two children. They have no written
agreement executed before the marriage to govern their property relations or
have any community property acquired during their marriage. They have no
debts;

5. That petitioner met the respondent sometime in 2005 in the City of

Surigao. Their romance culminated in a marriage before the priest of San Nicolas
de Tolentino church;
 6. That in a short span of time they had been together, this is the time
which the petitioner describes as a period where the respondent’s instability,
psychological or otherwise, showed up;

7. That other instances, wherein such instability could be reasonably

inferred are as follows:

a. After their marriage, the respondent gave up his job at Surigao

Metropolitan Water District (SMWD) as General Manager without
justifiable reason;

b. That petitioner tried to explain to him that it was his responsibility to

support her but respondent would ignore and shout at her, making
the petitioner the breadwinner of the family;

c. That the respondent is a compulsive gambler;

d. He is a womanizer;

e. He resorts to drug and alcohol abuse during their cohabitation;

f. That the respondent does not want to have another child with the
petitioner because according to him it will just cause burden for
him;

g. That parties would fight even for the smallest things through not
due to the fault of the petitioner, and frequently, the respondent
would always apologize to the petitioner, but later on, he will repeat
his quarrelsome and troublesome ways;

h. He prefers to hang out with friends and with her flings instead of
being with petitioner;

8. That during their honeymoon period, things was running smoothly

between them, but not on the succeeding week, when the respondent’s instability
started to manifest clearly to the petitioner. Their relationship lasted sometime in
2016;

9. That some other manifestations of the psychological and emotional

disturbances on the part of the respondent can be cited as follows:

a. That there were many times when the respondent never even
kissed the petitioner. Respondent would not even look at her
whenever they spoke with each other. She was always the one,
who holds or hugs him so that they may become closer to each
other but every time she tries to be closer to him, he simply had to
 always turn his back to her. This is causing so much unbearable
emotional and psychological pain on the part of the petitioner;

b. That petitioner told the respondent that they should discuss what
went wrong between them and hopefully they could work it out
again. The petitioner verbalized all of the things she had noticed
and felt, knowing that everything works out when there is an open
communication. She told him about the lack of passion, respect and
romance in their relationship. The respondent just ignored her
pleas;

c. That respondent began hurting the petitioner physically by throwing

things on her and shoving her around;

d. That respondent did not stop gambling and using alcohol and
drugs;

e. The respondent abandoned the petitioner and left to be with

another woman. Since October 2016, the respondent did not return
nor tried to communicate with the petitioner. The petitioner on
several instances, tried to reach the respondent through his
relatives and friends but to no avail.

10. That the petitioner already gave up on the respondent after trying to give
all her efforts just to save her marriage to a man who, as shown in the foregoing,
is not cognitive to and psychologically incapable of performing, his basic marital
covenants to herein petitioner;

11. That further, respondent’s psychological incapacity from all indications

appears to have been manifesting at the time of the celebration of marriage.
Although said manifestations were not then perceived, the root cause shall be
proved to such an extent that respondent could not have known the obligations
he was to fulfill or knowing them could not have validly performed them. It is of
such incapacity that respondent was unable to assume his marital obligations. A
copy of respondent’s psychological report is attached and made integral part
hereof as Annex “B”;

12. That the respondent’s incapacity to fulfill his essential marital obligations
appear to be grave, incurable and deeply ingrained, thus; warranting the
issuance of the Decree of Nullity of petitioner’s marriage with the respondent;

13. That finally, the petitioner has therefore no other recourse but to seek
judicial relief. The prospects or possibility of respondent to reform and assume
his essential marital obligations is a remote possibility, if not a hopeless
expectancy.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, after trial, it is respectfully prayed that this

Honorable Court rendered judgment:

1. Declaring the marriage entered into by the parties as NULL and

VOID on the ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent;

2. Ordering the Local Civil Registrar and the National Statistics Office
to cancel in their respective Books of Marriages, the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent.

Petitioner prays for such other relief she may be entitled to in the
premises.

City of Surigao, December 28, 2018.

LOAYON, PLATIL AND ASSOCIATE LAW

OFFICES

By:

_________________________
Atty. Kenya Anne L. Loayon
Commission Serial No. 14344
Until December 31, 2019
Roll of Attorney 34555
IBP. No.2222/January 1, 2005/Manila
P.T.R. No. 2223/January 1, 2019
Roll No. 2256
 VERIFICATION-CERTIFICATION
ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Monica Reyes Santiago, of legal age, Filipino citizen, resident of 123-A

Rizal Street, Surigao City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law,
depose and say:

1. That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. That I caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition;

3. That all the allegations therein are true and correct of my own
knowledge and based on authentic records;

That I hereby certify under oath that I have not heretofore commenced
any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, and that to the best of my
knowledge, there is no other action or proceeding, which is pending before this
Honorable Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court or any other tribunal or
agency involving the same parties and the same issues, and that if I learn
hereafter that there are other proceedings pending before this Honorable Court,
or any other tribunal or agency, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five
(5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

Surigao City, Philippines, December 28, 2018.

_____________________
Monica Reyes Santiago
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 28th day of December,

2018 at Surigao City. Affiant exhibited to me her Filipino Passport No. 12345
issued at Manila.

Atty. Kenya Anne L. Loayon

Commission Serial No. 14344
Until December 31, 2019
Roll of Attorney 34555
IBP. No.2222/January 1, 2005/Manila
P.T.R. No. 2223/January 1, 2019
Roll No. 2256

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2019.