Petition Nullity John Mijares

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONAL
PASAY CITY
BRANCH NO. __
JOHN CABALLERO MIJARES,

Petitioner,
-versus-
FOR: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage under Article 36
of the Family Code of the Philippines.
MARISSA J. GUSTILO,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------x
PETITION
Petitioner, through counsel, respectfully alleges:
1. That he is of legal age, married to, but separated from MARISSA J.

GUSTILO (“Respondent” hereinafter), and a resident of 1712 Maytubig Street,
Pasay City, where he may be served with summons, notices, and other processes of
this Honorable Court.
2. Respondent is of legal age, married to, but separated from petitioner,

and with address at Brgy. Nabitasan, Leganes, Iloilo City, where she may be
served with summons, notices, and other processes of this Honorable Court
3. Petitioner and Respondent married each other on June 30, 2004 in

IloIlo City as shown by a copy of Certificate of Marriage hereto attached as Annex
“A”.
4. The marriage is governed by the absolute community of property, and

the Petitioner and Respondent acquired no property either real or personal, of
significant value, during their marital consortium.
5. Petitioner and Respondent’s union did not acquire any child.
1|Page
II.
CAUSE OF ACTION
6. This is a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage between

Petitioner and Respondent on the ground of Psychological Incapacity of the
Respondent existing before and at the time of their marriage pursuant to Article 36
of the Family Code of the Philippines.
III
STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. Sometime in 2002 petitioner and respondent met each other when they
were both made godparents during the baptism of the child of a common friend.
They had the chance to talk and petitioner learned that respondent studied at the
University of the Philippines-Visayas at Miag-ao, Ilo-Ilo City where he also used
to work as Security Guard. Petitioner also learned that respondent was working as
an OFW in Hongkong. They became fond with each other and had a mutual
understanding relationship. However, it was only a mutual understanding
relationship because both of them believed that a long distance boyfriend-girlfriend
relationship would not work out.
9. Few months later, in 2003, respondent went back to Hongkong. A year

later, however, petitioner was surprised when respondent reappeared in the
former’s doorsteps. Petitioner was even more surprised when respondent
confronted him about the gossip the latter heard in Hongkong that petitioner was
courting a girl. Petitioner told respondent that it was only normal for him to court
another because they did not have a relationship also. It was then when respondent
told petitioner that she loved him and that she could not live without him anymore.
Since petitioner also loved respondent, they had sexual intercourse that night. The
following day on June 30, 2004, they went to Hall of Justice IloIlo City and was
solemnized.
10. The couple lived together under one roof. Petitioner worked as a
policeman while respondent decided to go back to Hongkong just few days after
the wedding. It was too soon that respondent did not even bother to give petitioner
of her address. In fact, petitioner still begged respondent to stay but to no avail.
11. Petitioner was left wondering why his wife had to leave that soon.
Petitioner knew his wife loved him but he also wondered why his wife could not
stay for few more months in the country when he was also capable of supporting
her. Petitioner was so devastated that he just focused his work.
12. While in Hongkong, respondent would call petitioner. However,

instead of talking how much they missed each other, respondent would nag
petitioner. Respondent would just call petitioner to accuse him of having an affair
even without basis at all. The petitioner tried to explain to respondent that her
suspicions are false and unfounded. But respondent sounded so delusional,
extremely insecure and jealous. On the other hand, when petitioner would call
2|Page
respondent during her day-offs, the latter would not also talk to him and would tell
him that she was outside with her friends. Petitioner was so confused of how
respondent behaved; that while in Hongkong, respondent had been failing to
perform even the most essential of keeping each other happy despite the long
distance marriage. Respondent did not want her and petitioner to be happy. All she
knew was to keep their life miserable.
13. Moreover, respondent had not exhibited the foregoing traits and
behavior during their whirlwind courtship. The petitioner felt that respondent
suddenly changed after they got married. Petitioner felt that the reason of the
sudden change of respondent was because respondent regretted marrying him.
14. Few months had passed, still, respondent lived as if she were single
and was unmindful of her husband’s needs. She was so self-centered, selfish and
immature. When petitioner confronted her about her behavior, she showed
indifference. She eventually stopped calling petitioner. Worse, she also refused to
answer petitioner’s calls. But petitioner still tried everything to ease their marital
problems. He talked to his wife’s parents because they might know the
whereabouts of his wife. But even respondent’s parents did not know of her
whereabouts.
15. Since then, the parties had not talked to each other anymore.
Petitioner would visit his wife’s parents from time to time. He would hope he
could get some news about respondent. But everytime he would visit his wife’s
parents, he would go home frustrated. Because of the respondent’s failure to
comply her marital obligations with respondent, the parties did not have children.
V
CONCLUSION
16. Based on the forgoing facts, respondent is not psychologically fit to

carry out her role as a wife and a mother to their children as manifested by her
incapacity before and during their marriage.
17. Further, respondent failed to comply with the following provisions

of the law as wife to Petitioner, to wit:
“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live

together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and
render mutual help and support.”
“Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the

support of the family. The expenses for such support and
other conjugal obligations shall be paid form the
community property and, in the absence thereof, from the
income of fruits of their separate properties. In case of
insufficiency or absence of said income or fruits, such as
obligations shall be satisfied from the separate
properties.”
3|Page
“Art. 71. The manager of the household shall be the right
and duty of both spouses. The expenses for such
management shall be paid accordance with the provisions
of Article 70.”
18. That, before and during their marriage, the mental and behavioral
conduct of Respondent is indicative of how she disregards the marital union and
her personal relationship with the Petitioner and if said conduct is considered as a
whole, it can be shown that it tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it
defeats the very objectives of marriage.
19. The gravity of her psychological conditions had been chronic and
incurable for she continuously showed utter insensitivity or inability to give
importance and meaning to their marriage. And finally, their reconciliation is
impossible as differences between the parties are already intolerable and
unbearable.
VI
STATEMENT OF THE PROPERTY REGIME
GOVERNING THE MARRIAGE OF THE PARTIES
20. The property regime governing the property relations of the parties is
the complete or absolute separation of properties. Parties did not acquire any
property during the marriage.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

after notice and hearing, the Court render judgment declaring the Respondent
psychologically incapacitated and declaring as null and void the marriage between
petitioner and respondent in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.
City of Las Piñas City for March 12, 2018.
ATTY. MELANIE OBRIQUE-GUEVARRA

Counsel for the Petitioner
Unit C, Lot 10 Block 1, Manuela 4H
Las Pinas City
IBP No. 032769; 02-08-18; Pasig City

PTR No. 1262166; 01-16-18; Parañaque City
Roll No. 56511
MCLE Compliance No. V-0022774
4|Page
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, JOHN CABALLERO MIJARES, of legal age, Filipino citizen and with

address at 1712 Maytubig Street, Pasay City, under oath, depose and state that:
1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition for Declaration of

Nullity of Marriage;
3. I have read and understood the contents thereof to be true and correct of my
own personal knowledge and authentic records;
4. That, I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same subject matter, issues or facts before in the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, or any other Tribunal or Administrative body or agency;
5. That, to the best of my knowledge, no such action of proceeding is pending

in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other Tribunal or
Administrative body or agency;
6. That, if I should thereafter learned that a similar action or proceeding has

been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
any other Tribunal/Agency, I shall immediately notify this Court within five
(5) days from knowledge thereof, and for the Court’s information that this
case is filed in good faith and not for forum shopping.
JOHN CABALLERO MIJARES

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public for and

in the city of ___________________, this _____day of __________________
2018, by affiant who has satisfactorily proven to me his identity through his
Identification Card issued at __________________ as competent evidence of his
identity.
5|Page

Petition Nullity John Mijares

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition Nullity John Mijares

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition Nullity John Mijares

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

JOHN CABALLERO MIJARES,

Petitioner, through counsel, respectfully alleges:

1. That he is of legal age, married to, but separated from MARISSA J.

2. Respondent is of legal age, married to, but separated from petitioner,

3. Petitioner and Respondent married each other on June 30, 2004 in

4. The marriage is governed by the absolute community of property, and

5. Petitioner and Respondent’s union did not acquire any child.

6. This is a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage between

9. Few months later, in 2003, respondent went back to Hongkong. A year

12. While in Hongkong, respondent would call petitioner. However,

16. Based on the forgoing facts, respondent is not psychologically fit to

17. Further, respondent failed to comply with the following provisions

“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live

“Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

City of Las Piñas City for March 12, 2018.

ATTY. MELANIE OBRIQUE-GUEVARRA

IBP No. 032769; 02-08-18; Pasig City

I, JOHN CABALLERO MIJARES, of legal age, Filipino citizen and with

1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition for Declaration of

5. That, to the best of my knowledge, no such action of proceeding is pending

6. That, if I should thereafter learned that a similar action or proceeding has

JOHN CABALLERO MIJARES

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public for and

You might also like