REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Regional Trial Court

First Judicial Region
Branch 4— Baguio City

MARIA ROSARIO CRUZ-MONTES

Petitioner,
CIVIL CASE No. 123456
-versus- For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage under Art. 36 of the
DAN JOAQUIN MONTES Civil Code
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------x

PETITION

PETITIONER, by and through the undersigned Counsel,

and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully avers—

1. Petitioner MARIA ROSARIO CRUZ-MONTES is of

legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of No. 30 Phase 1,
Bakakeng, Baguio City, Philippines, where she was a resident
thereto since 2005. A copy of her Certificate of Residency issued by
Barangay Captain Leonora Tamado of Bakakeng Barangay is
hereto attached as ANNEX "A". Respondent DAN JOAQUIN
MONTES is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of 102
Bugallon St., Aurora Hill, Baguio City, Philippines, where he may
be served with summons and other judicial processes.

2. Petitioner Maria Rosario Cruz-Montes and respondent

Dan Joaquin Montes were joined in wedlock on February 15, 2007
before the Rev. Fr. Juan Emil Siong at Holy Family Parish
Church in Bakakeng, Baguio City, Philippines, as can be gleaned
from their Certificate of Marriage issued by the Philippine
Statistic Authority/Office of the Civil Registrar General, copy of
which is hereto attached as ANNEX "B".

3. Petitioner and respondent do not have any common

children.

4. In August 2006, petitioner after experiencing a

tremendous break-up with her supposed to be fiancée accidentally
open lovedesire.com a dating website wherein she was love at first
sight by the physical looks of respondent. After being matched
1|Page
with one another they begin to chat and exchanged sweet coated
words that lead to petitioner falling in love immediately for the
respondent. Through computers wired to the internet, they
regularly communicated with each other by exchanging electronic
mails and video calls in real time. At that time and up to the
present, petitioner was then a call center agent and currently the
supervisor of Climax call center company located in Baguio City as
can be shown in her Employment Certificate, hereto attached as
"ANNEX C", while Respondent was then an Overseas Filipino
Worker as a Bartender in a cruise ship sailing from Australia to
the United States of America. Respondent is now a Co-owner of a
Resto-Bar in San Juan, La Union. Although they were governed
by regime of Absolute Community of Property, he treated his
income and that of the Petitioner as completely separate.

5. In November 2006, respondent went home to the

Philippines for a vacation, the two met in person for the first time
in Baguio City. Immediately thereafter, respondent asked
petitioner, "will you marry me?” to which petitioner with fear of
being left again easily and joyfully replied "yes!".

6. In December 2006, respondent and petitioner told

petitioner's family of the upcoming marriage and that respondent
will soon thereafter informed his parents. On February 15, 2007
the two got married and the attendants were their respective
common friends and family. At that time of their marriage
petitioner was twenty-seven years old while respondent was
twenty-five years old.

7. After they exchange marital vows, they spend their

honeymoon in Batanes for 5 days. When they were in Batanes
they had their first fight. Petitioner having a fear of being left
alone did not want respondent to go back to work and insisted
that he stayed with her as they are already husband and wife but
the respondent resisted.

8. After their honeymoon they went back to Baguio City,

however, they did not live under one roof as Respondent
immediately return to his work and petitioner returned to her
parents. They were constantly communicating with each other,
however it became seldom as Respondent would say that he is so
busy with work that he could not communicate with the
Petitioner. Their relationship then being rocky, the petitioner will
always call respondent and send him messages that she would end
her life if respondent do not go home. But even with her
persistence, respondent failed to give her desires.
2|Page
 9. There was a time when Respondent went home to the
Philippines but did not inform the Petitioner about it. It only came
to the knowledge of Petitioner when one of the friends of
Respondent told her that he went home to the Philippines. In fact,
Respondent only showed up to the Petitioner one week after he
returned home.

10. This occasion did not happen only once, similar events
happens several times, there was time when Respondent went
home to the Philippines and did not even show up to Petitioner.
This only came to the knowledge of Petitioner because of photos
that were uploaded in social media showing her husband enjoying
the scenery of the beach in San Juan, La Union with his friends
and having a drinking spree. Petitioner tried to talked to
respondent about it however respondent would only say that it is
his life not her to deal with.

11. On January 2011, respondent told petitioner that he will

no longer work abroad. To this point, petitioner was so happy that
they could have the chance of living as husband and wife, living
under the same roof. Her dream of having a child will soon come
true. The plan she was dreaming for a long time in her mind, the
ideas she reserved, of having a family will so put into actions.
However, these fantasies remain because soon after respondent
return from abroad, he did not even bother to asked petitioner to
live with him.

12. In fact, it was petitioner who told respondent to live

together however, respondent only told her that he wants to live
with his parents and that petitioner can also live with her
parents. He also told petitioner that they can go out once and a
while and that they need to arrange the date when they are going
out for dinner, trip or vacation but in her dismay, these never
happens as respondent started a resto-bar business in San Juan,
La Union.

13. Petitioner tried her best to constantly visit respondent in

San Juan, La Union, she even devoted her rest day travelling to
La Union just to be with respondent but respondent is always
busy, either having drinking spree with
or surfing in the beach, to the point that they could no longer have
a decent talk or meal with each other. Petitioner only wished to
have the time and attention of respondent, to feel the love and
care of her husband. The first and last time they engaged in

3|Page
sexual intercourse or any intimate activity was when they had
their honeymoon.

14. The loss of affection she felt from respondent create this
question, what did she do wrong? This was the nagging question
at the back of her tortured mind. She could not think of anything
she had done to merit such a cold treatment from the man she
dearly love. She could not think that her husband may love
someone else, she never doubted nor entertained in her mind that
her husband could do such grave thing.

15. Petitioner tried to talk to the parents of respondent about

the status of their marriage but according to the parents of
respondent, he did not even bother to check on them if they were
still alive, and that during the time when respondent was in
abroad, he did not even help them or any of his siblings. According
to the parents of respondent, when one of his siblings was
hospitalized because of dengue, respondent did not even bother to
check if his brother is still alive or give any monetary assistance
for his brother’s medication. Since childhood, respondent showed
traits of his selfishness, that he only cares for himself and not to
anyone else. In fact, the parents of respondent were surprised
when he told them that he was going to marry five days prior to
the marriage date. They were shocked that they could not believe
that their son was going to marry given his condition of self-
centeredness.

16. As things turned out, Respondent eventually left

Petitioner permanently in March 2013. He ceased all
communications with her.

17. Petitioner and respondent have been separated in fact

and have not communicated with one another. No communication
or any attempt to communicate was done by both parties.

18. On February 2015, Petitioner and Respondent cross path

again in an event in Baguio City. Petitioner took the chance to
speak with Respondent hoping to understand why he chose to live
his life separately. It was during that encounter that Respondent
finally admitted to Petitioner that he never loved her. He never
intended to get married, he planned his life living on his own, no
family to love or take care of, no obligation to support a family, in
short no commitment at all. That the marriage she had with
Petitioner was only a dare from his friends if he could marry
someone.

4|Page
 19. This confession made by Respondent to Petitioner broke
her heart, shattered into pieces. She devoted all her time for
Respondent and such a treatment she received was not love, it
was not even love after all. It was just a dare, which made her
believe that Respondent actually wanted to marry her. She was, in
the first place, never given love, respect, support and attention she
deserved as a wife. No mutual feelings of binding together as
husband and wife were present. The intention to marry was not
there, the sanctity of marriage vows was desecrated.

20. There was no concern for his obligations towards his wife
was to speak of, a clear violation of the Family code which
provides that husband and wife are obliged to live together,
observed mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help
and support. He has no conscience and even desecrated his
marital vows.

21. It appears that he is arrogant, his gross and persistent

disregard of his responsibility as a husband was so apparent. His
lack of care, ability to be affectionate and remorseful towards
others especially to his wife was so impaired by reason of some
past actuations that are apparent when he was still young and
was still present prior and after his marriage with the Petitioner.

22. Petitioner even when she was still a child, was always
being supported, loved and being taken care of her family that
even a little award in school she was being appreciated and her
parents are always proud of her, she was expecting the same
treatment from his husband but the sad truth is that her husband
was a total opposite of her expectations.

23. Petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real

property during the period of their cohabitation or thereafter. The
Certification of Non-Property issued by the Office of the City
Assessor of Baguio City as hereto attached as ANNEX "D".

24. Petitioner seeks the official declaration of the nullity of

her marriage to Respondent on the ground of Psychological
incapacity based on Article 36 of the Family Code. Respondent's
incapacity and inability to take cognizance of and assume his
basic marital obligations is grave, permanent and incurable. That
this incapacity existed "at the time of their celebration of
marriage".

5|Page
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that the marriage between petitioner and respondent be
declared null and void. Other reliefs just and equitable are
likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted, this 28th day of January 2019, at

Baguio City, Philippines.

THE LAW FIRM OF DE LUNA

CALAPATI LOPEZ LASTIMOZA AND
ASSOCIATES
Counsel for the Petitioner
No. 1 Session Road, Baguio City
Tel. no. [074] 424-0449
Email: dcll_lawfirm@yahoo.com

by—

ATTY. ARIES S. DE LUNA

Roll No. 68888
PTR No. 76263721 Baguio City
IBP No.873276327 Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No. 28371263217
Contact No. 0935-384-5852

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: S.S

DONE: IN THE CITY OF BAGUIO

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, MARIA ROSARIO CRUZ-MONTES, of legal age,

Filipino citizen, and a resident of No. 30 Phase 1, Bakakeng,
Baguio City, Philippines, after having been sworn in accordance
with law, hereby depose and state that—

6|Page
 1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitles case. I have
caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition and I certify and
confirm that I have read and understood all the allegations
therein base on my own personal knowledge and based on
authentic documents and records.

2. I certify that I have not caused or filed any similar case

with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other court,
tribunal, agency. That if I thereafter learn that a similar action or
claims has been filed with any court tribunal or agency I
undertake to inform the honorable court of the same within five
[5] days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I set my hand this 28th day of

January 2019, at Baguio City, Philippines.

MARIA ROSARIO CRUZ-MONTES

Affiant-Petitioner
Passport No. 57638
Issued on:1-15-2015
Expires on: 1-15- 2020

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary Public

for and in the City of Baguio this 28th day of January 2019, the
affiant along with her identification document above-stated known
to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing and she
acknowledged to me that the same is her free and voluntary deed
and act.

ATTY. PEDRA A. DELA CRUZ

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2019
Commission No. 975787980
Roll No. 67775
Doc. No. 1 PTR No. 76263721 Baguio City
Page No.1
Book No. I IBP No.873276327 Baguio City
Series of 2019 MCLE Compliance No. 28371263217

7|Page
8|Page