REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH ____
CITY OF MANILA

Janice Ramirez Dela Cruz,

Petitioner,

-versus- Civil Case No. __________

For: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage under Art. 36
of Family Code
Jonathan Suarez Dela Cruz,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PETITION

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

1. That petitioner Janice Ramirez Dela Cruz is of legal age, married, Filipino and
resident of 1001 G. Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila;

2. That respondent Jonathan Suarez Dela Cruz is likewise of legal age, married,
Filipino and presently residing at 1001 G. Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila;

3. That petitioner and respondent celebrated their marriage on December 28, 2003
before the Parish Church of San Agustin, Manila, 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 neither have written
agreement executed before the marriage to govern their property relations nor have any
community property acquired during their marriage. They have no debts;

5. That petitioner met the respondent sometime in 1998 in City of Manila. Their
romance culminated in a marriage before the priest of San Agustin 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 Ultramega

1
Supermarket as Assistant 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 a 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 were 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 2003;

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;

2
 e. The respondent abandoned the petitioner and left to be with another
woman. Since May 2003, 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;

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 Manila, January 22, 2016.

RIZAL AND MABINI AND ASSOCIATE LAW

OFFICES

By:
______________
3
Atty. Edward Rizal
Commission Serial No. 123456
Until December 31, 2016
Roll of Attorney 30000
IBP. No.2222/January 1, 2005/Manila
P.T.R. No. 2223/January 1, 2016
Roll No. 2256

4
 VERIFICATION-CERTIFICATION
ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Janice Ramirez Dela Cruz, of legal age, Filipino citizen, resident of 1001 G.
Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila, 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;

4. 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.

Manila, Philippines, January 22, 2016.

_____________
Janice Ramirez Dela Cruz
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22 day of January, 2016 at Manila.

Affiant exhibited to me her Filipino Passport No. 12532 issued at Manila.

Atty. Edward Rizal

Commission Serial No. 123456
Until December 31, 2016
Roll of Attorney 30000
IBP. No.2222/January 1, 2005/Manila
P.T.R. No. 2223/January 1, 2016
Roll No. 2256

Doc. No. 01;

Page No. 02;
Book No. 03;
Series of 2016.