Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Republic of the Philippines


8TH Judicial Region
Bulwagan ng Katarungan
Abuyog, Leyte



- versus - FOR:


x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COMES NOW, Petitioner, through the undersigned counsel, unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:

1. That petitioner is of legal age, married to respondent MARY

JANE BENUSA, and with permanent address at Brgy. Balinsasayao,
Abuyog, Leyte where he may be served with summons, notices and
other processes of the Honorable Court;

2. That respondent is also of legal age, married to petitioner

DEXTER M. LORETO, and a resident of 454, Plaridel St., Barugo, Leyte
where she may be served with summons, notices and other processes
of the Honorable Court;

3. That both petitioner and respondent have the capacity to

sue and be sued;

4. That before they got married in civil rites on 19 May 1999

in Abuyog, Leyte, petitioner and respondent got acquainted with each
other sometime in February, 1999 in a videoke bar in Carigara, Leyte
where petitioner was a walk-in customer with some friends while
respondent was working as a waitress in said videoke bar. Petitioner
and respondent got acquainted with each other during that first
meeting. Petitioner asked respondent if it would be alright for her if he
took her out after her work. Respondent agreed with petitioner’s

5. That after her work, petitioner and respondent checked

inside a lodging house situated near the videoke bar where respondent
work. While inside, respondent took out a bottle of Ginebra San Miguel
where she said she got from the bar and offered it to petitioner. After
having three shots of the liquor, petitioner felt dizzy and lied down on
the sofa.

6. That thereafter, petitioner can barely recall what transpired

between him and respondent inside the lodging house. The next day,
he was surprised when he woke up inside an unfamiliar place. After
regaining his consciousness, he got out of the lodging house and went

7. That after two months, respondent, accompanied by a

friend, went to petitioner’s house to inform him that something had
happened between them inside the lodging house. She also told
petitioner that she is pregnant because of what happened and feared
that if her parents discover her situation they might kill her. Confused,
petitioner told his parents of his ordeal and asked them on what to do.
His parents advised him to marry respondent in order to avoid scandal.

8. The couple got married in civil ceremonies sometime on 19

May 1999 before Honorable Rodrigo de la Serna, Municipal Mayor of
Abuyog, Leyte. Copy of the Certificate of Marriage is hereto attached
as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof;

9. That petitioner and respondent lived with petitioner’s

parents as respondent quits her job and petitioner was still in college.
They depended for support entirely from petitioner’s parents.

10. That it was during that cohabitation that petitioner sensed

something wrong in respondent’s behavior. Respondent would often
get mad whenever he arrives home late and is not immediately
attended to by petitioner. There was a time when petitioner was
having a drinking session with his friends inside their house that
respondent went berserk and told his friends to go home. Respondent
got mad for the flimsy reason that petitioner failed to immediately
attend to her.

11. That sometime in August 1999 during the fiesta celebration

of their place while petitioner and his friends were having a drinking
session, a girlfriend of petitioner’s friend arrived and joined them in
their drinking. That girlfriend of his friend did not stay long as
respondent became jealous, accusing that petitioner was the one
whom that lady went to their house for and not his friend. So petitioner
requested his friends to leave as respondent was already making
trouble due to jealousy. After his friends left their house, respondent
quarreled petitioner vigorously so he decided to evade trouble by
going to bed.

Petitioner was shocked when moments later, respondent

followed him to the bedroom and with a knife in her hand, suddenly
attacked petitioner with a stab blow. Fortunately, petitioner was able
to evade respondent’s stab and was able to grab the knife. In order to
avoid trouble, petitioner left the house and stayed in his grandparent’s
house. That had been the situation as respondent would always cause
trouble for the flimsiest reason, mostly on baseless jealousy.

Such attempts against petitioner’s life were repeated on two

more instances even while respondent was pregnant, always on
baseless jealousy and other flimsy causes that were more imagined
than real.

Petitioner thought that respondent’s attitude will change after

the birth of their child. Unfortunately, even after the birth of their son
on November 25, 1999 their troublesome situation persisted as
respondent remained quarrelsome, causing trouble even more. At
times when petitioner would not have sexual intercourse with
respondent as petitioner is tired from school, respondent would get
mad and baselessly accuse petitioner of having an affair with other
women. In order to avoid trouble and getting quarreled by respondent,
petitioner would always oblige and fulfill the whims and caprices of
respondent. That situation led them to having three children as no
amount of control by petitioner could be done for respondent had that
high orgy and would quarrel petitioner if unmet.
12. That petitioner and respondent begot three children, the first
child named ELY BENUSA LORETO was born on 25 November 1999;
the second child named MARCUS BENUSA LORETO was born on 10
October 2000; the third child named RAYMOND BENUSA LORETO
was born on 26 January 2003. Copy of the Certificates of Live Birth of
their three children are hereto attached as Annexes “B”, “C”, and “D”
and made integral parts hereof;

8. That petitioner was employed with the Philippine National

Police on October 2003 and was assigned at Mahaplag Police Station.

9. That lately, respondent committed another attempt against

the life of petitioner inside their house. The incident occurred on March
23, 2009 when respondent shot petitioner with a 45 caliber pistol in
front of their children whereby petitioner was hit on his foot. Copy of
the spot report is hereto attached as Annex “E” and made an integral
part hereof.

10. That since that shooting incident in 2009, petitioner

decided to live separately from respondent, fearing for his safety as
respondent had manifested her criminal inclination against the life of
petitioner. It created an indelible mark in petitioner’s mind over a
constant fear of a continuing threat upon his life as respondent is a
potential criminal who can strike anytime;

11. That when petitioner would confront respondent about her

unpleasant attitude and behavior, respondent would become violent,
shouting at petitioner with dirty attacks and engaging in verbal abuse
so humiliating and embarrassing to petitioner as respondent would do
it in public and in front of many people;

12. That after the marriage ceremony, petitioner expected to

have a happy life with the respondent hoping that she will change her
behavior and attitude for the better, showing and observing mutual
love, respect, and fidelity and render mutual help and support in happy
companionship and feeling secure that they will learn to live in
harmony and peace with each other and with their children. However,
to petitioner’s dismay and frustration, respondent had been and still is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital

13. That petitioner found to his great shock and dismay that
respondent’s quarrelsome attitude turned from bad to worse, causing
trouble and disharmony in their marriage. Petitioner was so much hurt
and devastated after the several attempts by respondent upon his life,
the latest being the most fatal and life threatening as he was hit with a
gunshot aimed on the vital part of his body on his foot;

14. That since petitioner’s discovery of respondent’s true

person of being violent who was prone to physically abuse petitioner
and her being an incorrigible troublemaker and quarrelsome person,
respondent willfully failed to perform her marital obligations and for all
intents and purposes does not consider him as her husband anymore.
Petitioner now sues respondent for the declaration of the nullity of the
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, as respondent at the
time she contracted marriage did not have the intent to perform her
marital obligations to the petitioner under Article 68 of the same
Code. As a matter of fact, immediately after their marriage, respondent
exhibited and manifested by overt acts and behavior that she was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations. The psychological incapacity was present at the time of
the celebration of the marriage, although the same became manifest
only thereafter, and thus, the marriage can be nullified under Article
36 of the Family Code;

Petitioner tried everything possible to persuade respondent to

change for the better and leave her violent personality so that they
could build their family and live together and establish a happy family,
fulfill their marital vows and discharge their reciprocal obligation to
consummate the essential duties of their union and in order that their
marriage will prosper to a happy family life but all such pleas by
petitioner were unheeded as respondent was in a paranoia of living a
violent life. Respondent was not ready to take the responsibilities and
was not prepared to live in a harmonious and peaceful union with
15. That respondent’s violent behavior and killer-instinct are
clear signs of psychological incapacity. Respondent’s odd behavior
demonstrates a severe insensitivity and inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. It is very well to stress that one of the
essential marital obligations is to support each other under a mutual
love of a happy family life.

16. That respondent’s act affirms her adamant willful refusal to

take the marital obligations of establishing a happy family.
Respondent’s act is indicative of a hopeless situation and a serious
personality disorder which is a clear manifestation of her incapacity to
fulfill the obligations of her marriage vows which requires the essential
duties to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity and
render mutual help and support;

17. That petitioner, realizing that he is growing older day by

day, decided not to prolong his agony by filing this petition to nullify
his marriage with respondent, which marital life had long deteriorated
and broken into pieces.

18. That ever since petitioner never fell in love with respondent
and his life was always in hellish trouble under imminent danger and
threat from a violent woman with killer instincts;
19. That before the filing of this petition, petitioner had exerted
earnest efforts for possible reconciliation with respondent but the same
went all for naught.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered:

1. Declaring the respondent MARY

JANE BENUSA psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations pursuant to
the provisions of Article 36 of the Family

2. Declaring the nullity of the

marriage between petitioner DEXTER
for being void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity on the part of
the respondent in accordance with
Article 36 of the Family Code;

3. Allowing the petitioner to revert to

his civil status as “SINGLE”;

4. Other reliefs just and equitable

under the premises are likewise prayed

Barugo, Leyte for Tacloban City, Leyte. 05 January 2011.


Counsel for the Petitioner
#45 Burgos St., Barugo,
Appointment No. 25 Until
Dec. 2015 Roll of Attorneys
No. 12345
PTR No. 1398649 01/10/08
IBP No. 671008 06/28/02
Roll No. 54445
MCLE Compliance No.II-
Copy furnished:


Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City

Republic of the Philippines)

Barugo, Leyte )S.S.



I, DEXTER M. LORETO, subscribing under oath, hereby deposes

and states that:
1. I am the petitioner in the instant case.
2. I have read the foregoing Petition and the allegations
therein are true and correct.
3. I attest to the authenticity of the annexes thereto.
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency.
5. No such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency.
6. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any
other tribunal or agency, I hereby undertake to notify
this Honorable Court within five (5) days from such


SUBSCRIBED and SWORN, to before me this 5TH day of

January 2011 in Barugo, Leyte. The affiant exhibiting to me his SSS No.
N26-01-004190 issued by Social Security System, on May 12, 2001,
and Community Tax Certificate No. 32354455 issued on November 30,
2010, at Abuyog, Leyte.


Notary Public for Barugo, Leyte
#45 Burgos St., Barugo, Leyte
Appointment No. 25 Until Dec.
2015 Roll of Attorneys No.
PTR No. 1398649 01/10/08
IBP No. 671008 06/28/02
Roll No. 54445
MCLE Compliance No.I-0027464
MCLE Compliance

Doc. No. 1
Page No. 2
Book No. 3
Series of 2011