REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
PASAY CITY
BRANCH _____

JENNIFER A. DE LA CRUZ,
Petitioner,

Civil Case No. __________

- versus - For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage

LUIS V. DE LA CRUZ
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PETITION

COMES NOW, the PETITIONER, through the

undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states:

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner JENNIFER A. DE LA CRUZ, is a Filipino

citizen, of legal age, and a resident of No.
_______________________ St., Pasay City.

2. Respondent, LUIS V. DE LA CRUZ, is also a Filipino

citizen, of legal age, and a resident of
_________________________.

3. Respondent and Petitioner are husband and wife,

having been married in Quezon City on December 18, 1994, as
evidenced by their marriage certificate which is hereto
attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex “A”.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

4. Petitioner met respondent in a mall sometime in

1993 where he worked as Security Guard while she worked as
teller. He was introduced by a common friend. She found him
alright at first despite being into excessive gambling. Their
Petition
De la cruz vs. De la cruz
Page 2 of 8

casual acquaintance turned into something else few weeks

later. After work, respondent would bring Petitioner to her
home and their courtship began until they became
sweethearts.

5. After a year, they decided to live together and rented

a small room. They were getting along smoothly at first as
couple although not married yet. Both strived and worked to
sustain themselves. Sometimes, respondent would go home at
dawn because of his work which Petitioner understood.

6. As the days past, Petitioner noticed that respondent

consumed more alcohol than the usual. There was even an
instance when he would display and play with his gun in front
of her when drank.

7. Petitioner got pregnant sometime in 1994 prompting

the parties to get married. On January 3, 1995, their first
child John A. De la cruz, was born. Copy of his birth certificate
issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) is hereto
submitted as Annex “B” as an integral part of this petition.

8. Petitioner accepted the situation to prevent fight

between them but she observed that respondent was
prioritizing his vanities instead of his family’s needs. This is
because a larger portion of his salaries went to his personal
vanities. To remedy the situation, Petitioner accepted different
works to support their family.

9. On June 10, 1997, the couple welcomed Louie A. De

la cruz, their second child. Copy of her PSA issued birth
certificate is hereto submitted as Annex “C” as an integral
part of this petition.

10. Their child was born on December 2, 1999 whom

they named Lucy A. De la cruz. Copy of her PSA issued birth
certificate is hereto submitted as Annex “D” as an integral
part of this petition. At that time, Petitioner knew that they
needed to work harder because their needs were also growing.
However, respondent kept his ways and continued to provide
them only with a portion of his salary.

11. The couple’s fourth child, Louiella Joyce A. De la

cruz, was born on November 21, 2000. Copy of her PSA issued
Petition
De la cruz vs. De la cruz
Page 3 of 8

birth certificate is hereto submitted as Annex “E” as an

integral part of this petition.

12. Petitioner decided to be an Overseas Filipino Worker

(OFW) and went to Saudi Arabia as a domestic helper in July
2006. Before leaving, she observed something strange about
respondent which made her think that he was having an
affair. It was because she asked his permission to work abroad
but he disagreed first.

13. They arranged how to take care of their children by

having somebody to look after them. Respondent even
promised that he will not neglect them. After a year, Petitioner
asked her auntie who was then going home to the Philippines,
to deliver some money to respondent. Her auntie
communicated with respondent through text message to
arrange a meeting so he can receive the money Petitioner sent.

14. However, respondent sent a wrong message to

Petitioner’s auntie telling another woman that they will meet
and respondent will sleep over in the place of the woman.
Upon her auntie’s return to Saud Arabia, Petitioner learned
about the message but she did not believe it yet. She
immediately called respondent who denied the message.

15. Petitioner was already noticing something wrong

about respondent nonetheless that time. She observed that he
often turned his mobile phone off and he frequently came
home late even if it was already his time off from work. Their
children was also telling her that respondent frequently does
not come home and he no longer gives them allowance.

16. Petitioner again called respondent about what she

learned from their children but he denied that he was not
going home and claimed he gives them allowance. But, her
children’s version was more believable to her as they had no
reason to tell her lies. So, she asked their neighbors to verify
what she learned and another relative who lived in the same
compound confirmed that respondent indeed frequently does
not go home and left their children without any food nor
money for school.

17. This prompted her to call respondent again and

they ended up fighting. Since then, Petitioner and respondent
kept on fighting all her time as an OFW.
Petition
De la cruz vs. De la cruz
Page 4 of 8

18. After her contract ended after 2 years, she went

home to the Philippines sometime in 2008. She confronted
respondent and they were able to fix things. He promised that
he will change and will not forsake their children anymore.
Petitioner believed him and gained some peace of mind when
she returned to Saud Arabia.

19. Nonetheless, she was able to get hold of the mobile

phone of respondent and she got some names which according
to her intuition might be relevant to their problem.

20. To her frustration, respondent simply turned to his

old ways of not going home barely sometime after she was
back at her work abroad. He was home only once a week and
their children were without any adult companion. Respondent
again engaged in gambling and drinking.

21. This prompted Petitioner to stop sending him her

salaries. Instead, she sent the money directly to her eldest
child. Whenever she would call respondent, he would say he
was busy and if not, he cannot be conversed with clearly.

22. After just two months, Petitioner learned that

respondent was again back in his old habits of not going
home, neglecting their children, engaging in sabong. The idea
that respondent was having an affair became more
bothersome so Petitioner visited his social media account. To
her surprise, she could no longer open the same because the
password was changed. She wondered how he was able to
change his password when he does not know how to use a
computer.

23. Petitioner later on knew that it was respondent’s

paramour who changed the same. Petitioner searched for the
name of a woman which she earlier retrieved got respondent’s
phone when she went home in 2008. Petitioner saw pictures of
respondent with the woman in an intimate pose. She
confirmed that respondent was having an affair and he has a
child already with that woman.

24. Respondent and the woman even posted their other

activities together. Petitioner sent a message to respondent
and the woman to confront them. At first, they were still
denying their relationship but they eventually admitted it.
Petition
De la cruz vs. De la cruz
Page 5 of 8

Petitioner stopped communicating with respondent and

woman upon confirming the situation. She decided to just let
respondent be with his paramour because it was too heavy for
her to shoulder and she has children relying on her. The
burden of raising them was totally left solely on her.

25. Petitioner went home again in December 2012, this

time, unannounced to respondent and their children. When
she arrived home, nobody was there until their children came
after few hours. She told them not to tell their father because
it was her intention to personally catch respondent with the
woman or at least to pressure him to provide financial support
which he refused

26. After that incident, Petitioner absolutely stopped

any correspondence with Respondent because she realized
nothing good will happen. They were going in circles and
things just kept repeating itself. She would forgive her and he
will be back in his wrongful ways.

27. Since December 2012, they have been living

separately and respondent was not giving any support.
Petitioner single handedly raised their children, provide for all
their needs aside from education.

CAUSE OF ACTION

28. The foregoing indisputably manifest a valid and

just cause for the nullification of the marriage between
Petitioner and Respondent under Article 36 of the Family
Code of the Philippines;

29. Due to obvious psychological incapacity of both

Petitioner and Respondent, their marriage should be declared
null and void. They are both psychologically incapacitated to
comply with their essential marital obligations under the law;

30. Respondent’s behavior towards Petitioner, the

infidelity she committed, the insults, manipulations, lies,
disrespectfulness she made against him before and after
marriage, her coldness and insensitivity, her detached
treatment of him, and lack of care towards him are all
manifestations of psychological incapacity rendering her
unable to perform her essential marital obligations.
Petition
De la cruz vs. De la cruz
Page 6 of 8

31. Based on the psychological report on both

Petitioner and Respondent prepared by Clinical Psychologist
Magdalena De la cruz, Respondent has been suffering from
Paranoid and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. An
incapacity that disables her to comply with her basic marital
duties such as observing love, respect and fidelity towards her
husband, and to render help or support for the family;

Copy of the Psychological Assessment of Petitioner and

Respondent conducted by Clinical Psychologist Magdalena De
la cruz is hereto submitted and made integral part hereof as
Annex “C”;

32. As stated in the psychological report, the salient

features in the personality of the Respondent are as follows:

“Xxx the Respondent demonstrated symptoms

related to Paranoid and Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, an extremely jealous and distrustful attitude,
and overly demanding character. She was known to be
confrontational with her relationship issues between
them (e.g. challenging his husband of separation due to
her discontentment or unsatisfactory married life). The
Respondent also showed expansive moods to the
Petitioner. Results showed that the respondent has
acting out behavior (e.g. cursing the petitioner
whenever she got jealous) and goes to excessive
lengths to retaliate to the petitioner. She seemed
manipulative of people and made choices favorable to
her (e.g. chatting and enjoying her life with another
guy; going out with another guy while pretending to be
in a good relationship with the petitioner). She has
difficulty dealing with the past and would always
remember those moments when she was ignored or
maltreated by the petitioner..” (Underscoring
supplied)

33. The above findings on the respondent may well

explain her behavior towards Petitioner. He overly demanding
character makes her feel a sense of entitlement such that the
grave things she has done in her marriage appear to be menial
to her. Her misplaced valuation of herself made her very
detached from Petitioner to even feel she has violated him and
their marriage. Imagine going out with another man in an out
of town activity after her husband just left her. Worst, she was
even bringing their child in the house of her paramour.
Petition
De la cruz vs. De la cruz
Page 7 of 8

34. Petitioner, on the otherhand, was found to be with

Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder which equally
renders him psychologically incapable of performing his
essential marital obligations.

35. In the same psychological report, it was established

that Respondent and Petitioner’s disorder is deeply ingrained
in their personality, continuous, chronic and permanent. It is
characterized by juridical antecedent brought by how they
were raised as a child. Thus, their psychological incapacity
was present even before the celebration of the marriage and
was only manifested after the solemnization of the marital
vows.

36. Respondent and Petitioner’s incapacity is incurable

as stated in their psychological report. Thus, “The
abovementioned clinical condition has become an integral part
of their lifestyle resulting to having weak sense of self and poor
emotional expressions prior to their marriage. It is deeply rooted
within their personality that has resulted to their lack of ego
strength and poor sense of trust in their character. Initiating
change and acting on their maladjusted personality would not
be possible for the parties involved. These personality dilemmas
are deeply rooted in their system that no psychological
treatment could help. A person with Obsessive Compulsive
personality and Narcissistic personality with paranoia does not
have the realistic sense of self, which could lead them to
confront their need for treatment. Further, their severe
psychological disturbances have greatly troubled their normal
functioning. It is considered grave, incurable, and permanently
engrained in their psychological system.”

37. Hence, the marriage between the Petitioner and

Respondent on November 28/December 13, 2010, should be
declared NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the Family
Code of the Philippines because of the psychological
incapacity of both the Respondent and the Petitioner.

ALLEGATIONS AS TO ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

38. Petitioner and respondent was not able to

acquire any properties during their marriage and has no
liabilities.
Petition
De la cruz vs. De la cruz
Page 8 of 8

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, the
marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent on
___________________ be declared NULL AND VOID.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are

likewise prayed for.

Quezon City for Pasay City, April 29, 2017.

MAK A. BAYAN
Counsel for Petitioner

Copy furnished:

Office of the Solicitor General

Salcedo Village, Makati City

Office of the City Prosecutor

Antipolo City