Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region San Juan City Branch ______ BENJO C. BERNARDO, Petitioner, - Versus -
Civil Case No. ___________ For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO, 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 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.
Page 02.
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 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.
Page 03. 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;
Page 04.
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. That 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.
