“P E T I T I O N
PETITIONER x x
x, by counsel, respectfully states:
1. Petitioner is xxx years old, born on xxx,
old and a resident of xxx City.elo
Petitioner is a graduate
of Bachelor of Science in xxx from the xxx.
He had completed various relevant training in his field that catapulted
him to the coveted position of Chief Mate at a very young age. Petitioner was the ship captain at the age of
xxx years of the xxx, where he took of his training in his field.
Attached as Annex “A” hereof is a copy of the Bio-Data of the petitioner for ready
reference.
2. The respondent xxx is xxx years
old, born on xxx, and a resident of xxx City, where she may be served with
summons for the instant case.
Respondent finished xxx
at a school in xxx. While petitioner
knew that respondent was employed with xxx from xxx to xxx, he has no knowledge
of respondent’s present employment, if any.
3. Petitioner has been employed at the xxx Corporation
from xxx until present. He was a Deck Cadet from xxx to xxx; Third Mate from xxx
to xxx; Third/Second Mate from xxx to xxx; Second Mate / Chief Mate from xxx to
xxx; and Chief Mate from xxx to xxx. He
holds the record of being the youngest ship captain at a young age of xxx years
old of the xxx Corporation.
4. Petitioner had a son out
of wedlock, during his bachelor years. The son is xxx, xxx years old, born on xxx,
xxx grade pupil. Petitioner has been the one providing financial support to xxx
through remittances deposited in a bank.
Attached as Annex
“B” is a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of xxx.
5. Petitioner and respondent
first met sometime in xxx. They initially became text mates from xxx to xxx of
that year when one of Petitioner’s college classmates gave him Respondent’s
mobile number. However, they eventually lost contact starting xxx because
Petitioner had to undergo a seaman-training course at the xxx Institute xxx
where mobile phones are not allowed while in the duration of the training. By xxx,
Petitioner was able to successfully finish his training course and resumed his
communication with the Respondent. In the same month of xxx, Petitioner and respondent
met for the very first time in xxx and engaged in pre-marital sex on the same
day.
6. Since then, petitioner
and respondent saw each other once every week. They were already sweethearts
when petitioner boarded a vessel as Desk Cadet in xxx for his first work contract. Their relationship
continued via long distance, with constant calls and emails. In xxx, petitioner
had his vacation in the Philippines. It was then when he introduced the respondent
to his family. The latter warmly accepted the respondent.
7. In xxx, respondent started
to stay at the house of the petitioner, with petitioner’s parents and siblings.
Petitioner’s siblings started to notice
that petitioner and respondent often engaged in verbal arguments over petty
matters. They would shout at each other and no one would want to back off.
Petitioner expected the respondent to give in during fights but respondent
would even get angrier than him, not wanting to lower her voice.
8. Moreover, Petitioner
discovered that Respondent is the dominant and controlling type. She wanted
things her way and would be very angry when her wants are not granted. Petitioner
realized that he and respondent are incompatible to each other. He already
wanted to separate from her but he could not do so when she broke the news that
she was already pregnant with their child.
9. Petitioner and respondent
eventually got marriage to each other on xxx, despite the uncertainties already
entertained in the mind of the petitioner, because petitioner had asked the
permission of the respondent’s mother for the said marriage. After the nuptial,
the couple continued to establish their dwelling place at the house of
Petitioner’s parents.
Attached
as Annex “C” hereof is a copy of
the
Certificate of Marriage of the parties.
10. While living together as
husband and wife, petitioner found out that respondent was a very jealous and
suspicious woman. Whenever Petitioner arrived home from his training,
Respondent would check his belongings, especially his mobile phone, for any
evidence of a probable infidelity on his part. She suspected him of having an illicit
affair with his former girlfriends, particularly with the one whom he had sired
a child out of wedlock. While petitioner admitted that he had a son prior to
meeting the respondent and he had flings before; he no longer engaged in such flings
after his wedding with the respondent. However, respondent did not believe the
petitioner and she grew all the more suspicious of his actions, accusing him of
infidelity even if she has no concrete basis at all.
11. Despite the fact that their marital
relationship was already in shambles as they continue to engage in heated
argumentation and fights, the supposed
child of the parties, xxx was born on xxx.
Attached as Annex “D” hereof is a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of xxx.
12. Petitioner observed the
distance that developed
between him and xxx. At first his attributed the said distance due
to his overseas employment. Petitioner
was often told that the features of xxx are starkly different from his. Finally, he decided to subject xxx and
himself to DNA to ascertain his paternity of the said child.
The differences in the
facial features of the petitioner and Xxx
Xxx are readily visible in the attached picture of the petitioner and xxx taken
recently in xxx (Annex “E” hereof).
13. Much to the petitioner’s dismay, the DNA
result
conducted on Xxx Xxx and himself
shows that
“xxx is not the biological father of xxx”.
Attached
as Annex “F” hereof is a copy of
the
abovereferred DNA Result
conducted by the xxx on xxx.
14. Prior to the birth of xxx,
petitioner again
boarded a vessel with a position of Third Mate
from xxx to xxx for his second work
contract. This time, respondent started to nag him about financial support to
the point that his work on board was already being affected. She demanded more
money from the petitioner and was questioning the support he is giving for his
siblings’ education. Petitioner argued that prior to getting married; he had
already cleared this with the respondent. He told her that he will still
support his siblings who sacrificed their education for him to graduate first
so that he can have a job. Supporting them was his way to pay them back for
their sacrifices. However, respondent took this negatively and would demand more
financial support even if petitioner was also giving to her family whenever
needed. Respondent would even pick up a fight with Petitioner’s youngest
sibling with regards the financial remittances. Despite the objection of the
respondent, petitioner continued to finance the education of his siblings to compensate
them for their sacrifices they underwent for his education.
15. Petitioner has been regularly
sending adequate
amount of monetary remittances to the respondent.
His monthly financial allocations were initially amounting to PHP xxx, until it
increased to PHP xxx. At present, he is sending PHP xxx to the respondent and xxx
on a monthly basis. Despite these amounts, respondent is not yet satisfied and
even demanded more. She once told the Petitioner that she must receive PHP xxxx
when he is a third mate, PHP xxx as second mate, PHP xxx as chief mate and PHP xxx
as captain.
16. When Petitioner boarded
the vessel with a position
of Third Mate, promoted to Second Mate, from xxx
to xxx, for his third work contract, Respondent transferred location to xxx because
she did not want to live with his parents and siblings. In the same year, respondent
asked PHP xxx from the petitioner supposedly for the heart operation of xxx.
The following year, she asked PHP xxx from him for follow-up operation of the
child xxx. Petitioner had incurred debts just to raise such amount in order to
improve the health condition of the child xxx. Later on, however, Petitioner
inquired at the xxx Hospital with regards the child’s record and was shocked to
learn that no operations were performed for the child. In fact, the child has
no record of consultation on the said hospital. It was then when Petitioner
started to ask the respondent where his hard-earned income was spent on through
the years.
17. By hindsight, petitioner feels having gravely
victimized by the
respondent thru huge faked hospitalizations of the child xxx, who was
subsequently tested as not belonging to the petitioner.
18. When Petitioner took his
vacation in the Philippines
in xxx, he no longer stayed with the respondent
in xxx. They were already separated
during this time although he still visited the child xxx in xxx whenever he had
no training in the shipping company for his second mate examination. During his
visits, the estranged couple still engaged in sexual intercourse.
19. In xxx Petitioner boarded a vessel as Second Mate,
promoted to Chief Mate, for his fourth
work contract. He then met another woman, named xxx and engaged in an illicit
affair with her. The following year, xxx, Petitioner and xxx sired a child
named xxx, to whom the petitioner also extends financial support as his child.
20. Petitioner returned for
a vacation in the Philippines
in xxx. Petitioner and
Respondent were able
to find ways to reconcile to the marriage
between the parties another chance. He thought that the latter would change for
the better but he was just disappointed at her. Petitioner was then reviewing
for his examination as chief mate while Respondent was questioning the huge
amounts he was paying for the review. She was also demanding so much time from
him amidst the review. To address the complaint of the respondent, petitioner asked her to leave Xxx and stay with him at
his parents’ abode so that they could be
together more often.
21. However, their
relationship became worse than
ever, as their incompatibilities surfaced out again.
They engaged all the more in heated arguments and fights even at the presence
of his parents and siblings. Petitioner was unable to sleep due to the extended
quarrels with the respondent and he attended his review classes without
sleep. Petitioner lack peace of mind and concentration he needed
for his review. He temporarily found solace in the company of his male friends,
as they engaged in drinking sessions every night, every after review for the
chief mate examination. When he arrived home, he was pestered by the angry respondent
who continually nagged him.
22. Petitioner expected respondent to be
caring and thoughtful towards him, but she failed to look after Petitioner’s
welfare. She was cold and apathetic towards his concerns. Respondent could not even prepare merienda
for the petitioner and would require him to prepare his own merienda. Moreover,
respondent continued to be suspicious of him, constantly checking his
belongings upon arrival from his review classes. Respondent was selfish, jealous and indifferent. Respondent never cared for the petitioner and
his needs.
22. In the early part of xxx,
the couple
again engaged in heated fights when respondent
refused to allow the petitioner to attend the wake of his grandmother in xxx. Petitioner
could not bring respondent along with him in the wake because his family and
relatives strongly disapproved of her.
23. During heated fights,
Respondent would call her
parents and sister in xxx, crying and seeking
for sympathy, which the petitioner hated.
24. Their marital fights
became all the more frequent
and intense until Petitioner again boarded his
vessel as Chief Mate for the fifth
time on xxx to xxx.
25. While on board,
Respondent created a fake
Facebook account of the Petitioner and added
most of his friends, including his co-workers in the vessel. Through the said
fake account, Respondent was communicating with his co-workers, telling them
that she and her child was living in a squatter’s area and are already settling
for rock salt as their meals (nagdidildil ng asin). Petitioner was infuriated
upon learning this because he was certain that his financial allocations for
the respondent and the child xxx never waned. He still sends them monetary support
on a monthly basis. Petitioner further gathered that respondent also accused
his parents and siblings of sending her death threats. This became the last straw
of their relationship and petitioner finally decided that it is all over.
26. Petitioner believes that their relationship is
already
beyond repair. Petitioner did everything he
could to save his marriage with the respondent, however, their incompatibility
along with respondent’s pervasively flawed character had made it impossible to
redeem the relationship. Petitioner narrated It was in this premise that
Petitioner finally decided to separate from the respondent; hence the filing of
this annulment case.
27. The recent finding by the petitioner that the
child
xxx is NOT his
biological son further
strengthened Petitioner’s desire to severe any
remaining ties he has with the respondent who had lied to him all these years
that they were together.
28. The parties do not own any properties,
whether real or
personal.
29. The petitioner has engaged the services of the undersigned
counsel, Laserna Cueva-Mercader
& Associates Law Offices for the preparation, filing and prosecution of
the instant case.
30. The petitioner had engaged the
services of Dr. xxx, Clinical
Psychologist, for the determination of psychological
evaluation of both parties, who will be presented as an expert witness in support
of the instant petition.
Attached is Annex “G” is a copy of the Curriculum Vitae of Dr. xxx, Clinical Psychologist.
31. The psychological tests
administered by Dr. xxx
on the petitioner were: Revised Beta Examination II;
Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test; Draw A Person
Test; Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test ;
Sach’s Sentence Completion Test
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
I; Hand Test; and Self Analysis.
32. Based on the results of the psychological tests and
interview on the parties
and corroborator as well as based on the background data gathered and marital
history of the parties, the findings of Dr. xxx are reproduced in the
succeeding paragraphs hereinbelow, culled from the Report of Dr. xxx, M. A., xxx,
attached as Annex “H” hereof, to wit:
“After a thorough analysis of the data presented,
it is revealed that the eventual shattering of the conjugal partnership between
xxx and xxx is brought forth by the psychological incapacitation of the
Petitioner and Respondent. They were both governed by a debilitating
psychological conditions, which made them inept to be actively part of a
relationship where mutuality is founded and required. Their attitude and
behavior are all self-centered in nature that both their strivings are largely
focused to cater their pathological needs and demands”.
33. The reported behavioral manifestations of the petitioner
satisfies the
criteria of a “PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE PERSONALITY DISORDER COMORBID ANTISOCIAL
PERSONALITY DISORDER”. This personality disorder caused the petitioner to
be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage.
34. Dr. xxx characterized the
psychological incapacitation of
the petitioner as follows:
Petitioner
is regarded as an egocentric and self-centered person
who upholds a sense of entitlement. This being the case, he only thinks of
himself and anything that is in favor of him. He looked down on others,
degrading another person’s capacity and worth, perceiving them on a lower
stature than he is. During
argumentations, Petitioner would often tell the Respondent, “ako ang matalino,
top notcher ako e…” In return, he feels superior and
indomitable when these are just means to cover up deep-seated inadequacies and
crippling anxiety. Petitioner
also has mixed-up priorities in life. To him, his parents and siblings are more
important than his wife and child. Respondent narrated, “tinatakot niya kaming
mag-ina na di daw niya kami susustentuhan, kaya daw niya kaming kalimutan…mas
importante sa kaniya ang kasikatan niya sa family niya…mas priority niya ang
family niya kaysa sa amin.”
Petitioner
is described as an emotionally weak-willed man who could not directly assert
himself to the circumstances and people around him. From the very start, he has
reservations about marrying Respondent but still pursued with the wedding when
he could have cancelled the ceremony in the first place. Petitioner narrated,
“tinuloy ko po ang kasal kahit ayaw ko na sana, naisip ko na gusto ko na iatras
nag kasal…pero dahil nakapagpaalam na sa mga magulang namin, itinuloy na rin.”
On most occasions while inside the marriage, Petitioner was not able to stand
as the real man of the family as he lacks the ability to express power and dominion
over circumstances. He allowed his parents and siblings to dictate the terms to
him. Instead of being heard as the man, his decisions are typically without
authority and this made him truly incapable of leading the family. He is always
unsure and filled with feelings of inadequacy.
Petitioner
is depicted as a sullen and argumentative person. He is always on the defensive
side of things so much so that his marital relationship has been bombarded with
heated disputes and fights. Petitioner is described as “madaling magalit,
madaldal kapag galit, has a bad temper.” On the onset, he would succumb to
existing norms and standards as these would augment his subjugated disposition
and would probably add quality to his depleted self concept. However, he internally
broods hostile and oppositional feelings which further pave way to his
aggressive tendencies and impulsive predilection when provoked. He lacked
adequate control of his emotions and would direct them towards the Respondent
and their child. During marital disputes, Petitioner was expecting the
Respondent to give in during fights but Respondent would even get angrier than
him, not wanting to lower her voice. Petitioner narrated, “pag galit ako,
nasabay siya sa init ng ulo, di siya papatalo sa akin.”
Petitioner
sees himself as misunderstood and unappreciated, ill-fated and demeaned by
others. He feels victimized in his situation without seeing where his
shortcomings lie and his own share of negative contributions why his situation
come on such ending and unfortunate condition. Instead, he just believes that
others are seemingly unfair and are taking advantage of him. Petitioner is
illustrated as “masyadong mabait, madaling mapaniwala, masyadong maawain…”
Negativistic as he is, it has always been his way of thinking that other people
never saw his sacrifices. He thinks that he is receiving lesser appreciation
than what he deserves, and the discontented self-image that he has is blamed
towards the way other people treats him. This makes him all the more embittered,
disgruntled, and disillusioned in their relationship.
Petitioner
manifested vacillating emotional condition rendering him unstable to display
adequate reactions to relational stimulations. He dithers from being the
acquiescent and contrite type to the impulsive and hostile type. He was never
consistent with the attitude and behavior he has shown towards the Respondent.
At one point, he would be in his passive stance. Petitioner and Respondent saw
and communicated with each other last xxx. However, during this time,
Petitioner told Respondent, “hindi po niya ipapa-annul ang kasal namin dahil
mahal daw niya ako…” At another point, he would eventually feel angry to the
extent of threatening the Respondent, even her life. In xxx, Petitioner
blackmailed the Respondent by telling her that he will spread out her nude
photos in his laptop. Respondent narrated, “sa totoo lang po ma’am, natatakot
ako sa mga banta niya dahil alam kong kaya niyang gawin iyon.” Respondent
narrated, “I can prove his text messages na papatayin niya ako, papatayin niya
kami…”
Petitioner
is pictured as a man who takes his commitments lightly. He is emotionally
elusive when it comes to his marital difficulties so much so that he tends to
act passively just to preserve emotional attachment. He may appear conforming
but inwardly he is filled with scorn and contempt for his own incapacity which
he often expressed outwardly by way of passive-aggression and procrastination.
As a result, he engaged in an illicit affair with another woman. In xxx,
Petitioner boarded a vessel for his fourth
work contract. He then met another woman, named xxx, and engaged in an illicit
affair with her. The following year, xxx, Petitioner and xxx sired a child.
Petitioner lacked adequate insight
towards his pathological condition. This being the case, he failed to evaluate
the wrongness of his actions and was unable to profit from experience. He
utilized rationalization mechanism and offers alibis to place himself in the best
possible light, despite his evident shortcomings or failures. He would always
put the blame on the Respondent while defending his impulsive and self-centered
ways by making justifications of his decisions and actions. He would even
highlight his pathetic condition, being the one who passively honors his
financial obligations, which apparently places him in a positive spotlight.
However, monetary allocations are only part of his responsibilities as a
husband. He may argue that he was making it big and successful in his career,
but he was actually using this as his scapegoat, allowing his marital
relationship to suffer and emotional bond to really flourish. He was blaming
the Respondent, the situation, and other people, but never himself.
The
personality disorder of the petitioner is a by-product of the unfavorable
experiences and negative exposures he had during his childhood and adolescent
years. On those crucial times, he was just on his way of establishing the very
core of his person and was just building the permanent foundation of his
personality, serving as the grounds of his current maladaptive behaviors.
Growing up, Petitioner had been accustomed to obey his parents, along with
existing house rules. This being his childhood conditioning, he had learned the
value of obedience and compliance so that he can be accepted and approved by
his perceived society. He desperately tried hard to prove his worth and this
practice of pleasing people made him to repress his own feelings especially if
these are not incongruent with the people he chose to please.
Alongside,
Petitioner’s compelling self-interests and needs become stronger as these gain
much control of his actions and decisions. He grew impulsive when it comes to
the immediate gratification of his goals. He became too preoccupied of his own
pleasures that he demanded other people to cater to his every need. His
increasing self-orientation clashed with his debilitating desire to perform in
order to be accepted by his immediate milieu. These are poorly integrated into
a passive and self-centered person. Though he may put up a show of efficiency
and obedience, his emotion is deemed lacking in depth thereby sabotaging his
relationships.
As
no one was there to curb his defective ways, and help him alter his growing
negativism narcissism during childhood until he entered adulthood, all his
erroneous insight and faulty way of perceiving things made the reference of his
current maladaptive behavioral pattern. He is further found to have no ample consciousness
of his defective behavior which made him laid up to properly function as a
responsible, loving, caring, protective, faithful, trustworthy and
understanding husband”.
35. The reported behavioral manifestations of the respondent
satisfies the criteria
of a “HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH UNDERLYING
ANTISOCIAL FEATURES”. This personality disorder caused the respondent to be
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage.
36. Dr. Xxx characterized the
psychological incapacitation of
the respondent as follows:
“Respondent
has a striking sense of entitlement. She is demanding of immediate compliance
to her desires and would want petitioner to meet her expectations. She always
wanted to feel being treated in a way where she plays the upper hand in the
relationship and would still insist on what she wants even if it is already
impractical. She always wanted the attention of the petitioner. She demands for
his time and money and requires that she be immediately appeased though she
knew that it impossible to do so. If her wishes are not heeded, she easily
bombards the Petitioner with unnecessary and pointless naggings that are not
helpful in any way. Petitioner discovered that Respondent is the dominant and
controlling type. She wanted things her way and would be very angry when her
wants are not granted. Petitioner narrated, “pag galit ako, lalo niya ako
gagalitin, sasabay siya, kaya ko na lang mananahimik, pakumbaba na lang ako.”
It was then when Petitioner realized that he and Respondent are incompatible to
each other. He already wanted to separate from her but he could not do so when
she broke the news that she is already pregnant with their child.
The
respondent’s way of interaction is often characterized by seductive and
provocative behaviors to elicit the response she wanted from man. With her
interpersonally attention-seeking ways, she can be in her flirtatious, vain and
exhibitionistic approach to others especially the Petitioner. They engaged in sexual acts not long after
the met each other personally. She would usually employ dramatic tactics and
emotional trap to manipulate the Petitioner into doing his bidding. She knew
that Petitioner would not be able to stand knowing that their son are ailing,
thus by all means she used it against him to incur money. On the same year,
Respondent asked PHP 300,000 from the Petitioner apparently for their child’s
heart operation. The following year, she asked PHP 400,000 from him for
follow-up operation of their child. Petitioner had incurred debts just to raise
such amount in order to improve the health condition of their child. Later on,
however, Petitioner inquired at the Baguio Hospital with regards the child’s
record and was shocked to learn that no operations were performed for the
child.
She
is an egocentric and pleasure oriented person. She is selfish and only thinks
of her own comfort and happiness, even at the expense of her marriage and
family. She is reluctant to give up selfish indulgence and failed to be
responsible enough to attend to her duties. Arguments would ensue since she
wanted every dime of Petitioner’s income though she knew that he also had
responsibilities with his siblings. She is unwilling to share and questions the
Petitioner if he ever gives support to his family. Yet Petitioner would also be
disappointed since she never saved any remittances that he sends to her. She
demanded more money from the Petitioner and was questioning the support he is
giving for his siblings’ education. Petitioner argued that prior to getting
married; he had already cleared this with the Respondent. He told her that he
will still support his siblings who sacrificed their education for him to
graduate first so that he can have a job. Supporting them was his way to pay
them back for their sacrifices. However, Respondent took this negatively and
would demand more financial support even if Petitioner was also giving to her
family whenever needed. Respondent would even pick up a fight with Petitioner’s
youngest sibling with regards the financial remittances. Petitioner narrated,
“dahil lang sa biruan, nagkakaaway sila ng kapatid kong bunso, pikon kasi siya
(respondent).” Despite Respondent’s protests, Petitioner continued to finance
the education of his siblings.
She
lacks empathy and is unwilling
to
consider the feelings of other people especially the Petitioner. She utilizes
rationalization mechanism to justify her own transgression and blames
everything to the petitioner. Her blindness of her own fault made changes
impossible in the marriage since she is not inclined to wear the shoes of the
Petitioner. She demands, carps and argues just to get what she wants without
being sensitive that Petitioner has his own needs too. She wanted to come in
sight as the victim just to make light of her own misdeeds in the marriage
wherein fact it was her poor decisions that has put her in the position.
She
is deceitful woman who is not fettered by any moral obligation to create lies
for her personal gains or profit. Always aiming to alleviate herself, she lied
regarding the identity of her child and passed it on as the son of the
Petitioner to trap him into marrying her. She never cared for the well-being of
her son or the Petitioner knowing that the scores of lies she created will
affect both of them. In the past years that they were together, she kept to
herself the knowledge that Petitioner is not the biological father of her son
yet she asserted herself like a fishmonger wife’s who always demanded for
support.
The
personality aberration that respondent is suffering from has its initial course
during the crucial developmental phase in her life—childhood and adolescent
years—where negative experiences and child-rearing practices severely affects
the personality development. In the case of the Respondent, she grew up without
a father figure since her parents separated when she was a baby and he never
communicated with them again after he left them. Looking at the picture, the
young respondent has developed a strong sense of insecurity and inadequacy in
absence of fatherly affection that she needs. Hence, she grew up compensating
for this insecurity by engaging in relationship with men by being seductive and
provocative in the hopes that they could fill the void that she has inside only
to be always disappointed since they always falls short to her high
expectation. She never realized that they would never fulfill or quench the
emotional insecurity that she has.
Along with this is the lack of fatherly
affection comes the lack of adequate discipline and guidance from her mother
who was lenient in her ways with them especially the respondent. Albeit that
they were not financially well off, her mother indulges her whim and allows her
so much freedom to do what she wants. Punishment and sufficient disciplinary
measures were not provided to her leaving the young respondent with the
defective notion that she has the liberty to do what she wants. Later on, with
the excess freedom given to her, she has come to believed that she could use
anyone at her own disposal, without care for his or her feelings and emotions.
Since she grew up perceiving herself so deprived of love, she compensates later
on by asserting her bloated self-esteem to people. She became vain,
materialistic and demanding as her way to appease whatever ineptitude she has.
Enjoying a rather unfettered life due to the absence of effective caretakers,
she became dominant and demanding, as well as stubborn in insisting for what
she wants no matter how impractical it could be. Respondent did not learn to be
submissive, that she would do things without giving consideration on how it
might affect others or her relationships.
With this, due to the absence of proper guidance, and
effective disciplinary means, respondent grew up embracing these maladaptive
responses and turning them as the pillars of her personality”.
37. Dr. xxx concluded that the respective
psychological
incapacities of the petitioner and respondent speak of antecedence because such “flawed
personality began before they entered marriage and manifested only thereon”.
38. Dr. xxx described the respective psychological
incapacities of the
petitioner and the respondent as “GRAVE, PERVASIVE, SERIOUS, SEVERE, and
PERMANENT rendering it totally beyond repaid despite available treatments and
intervention considering the severity of petitioner’s and respondent’s aberrant
psychological conditions, which makes reconciliation very difficult and
impossible”.
39. Quoted hereunder is the pertinent
part of the
Report of Dr. xxx, viz:
Since the psychological aberration of the
Petitioner and Respondent stemmed early in their lives, these have been
engraved into their system making their functioning and adjustments highly
defective. Being an integral part of their wellbeing, such disorders are
considered to be grave, pervasive, serious, severe and permanent rendering it
totally beyond repair despite available treatments and intervention. Likewise,
their psychological incapacitations are noted to be of juridical antecedence –
meaning - such flawed personality pattern began before they entered marriage
and manifested only thereon. Considering the severity of Petitioner and
Respondent’s aberrant psychological conditions, reconciliation is found to be
very difficult and impossible”.
40. The diagnosed psychological
incapacities of both
the petitioner and the respondent prevent them from mutually performing their marital duties to each other. In support of this,
Dr. xxx states:
“Erstwhile couple, xxx
and xxx, could never live together
harmoniously as authentic husband and wife with the psychological
incapacitation of both of them. The hope of reconciliation with the hope of a
functional or normal marital union founded on love, respect, trust, support and
commitment is viewed to be uncertain and impossible as these essential
attributes of marriage never existed from the start of the relationship”.
41. Dr. xxx thus recommends that the marriage
between the parties be declared null and void based on the established
psychological incapacitation of both the petitioner and the respondent as
follows:
“Hence,
with much consideration to the findings and discussions made, the undersigned
psychologist humbly requests to this Honorable Court that their marriage be
declared null and void, on the account of Petitioner’s psychological
incapacitation”.
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
the marriage of the parties be declared null
and void from the beginning under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Petitioner also prays for other
reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Las Pinas City, xxx.
LASERNA
CUEVA-MERCADER
& ASSOCIATES LAW
OFFICES
Counsel for the Petitioner
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C. V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City
Tel. Nos. 872-5443; 846-2539
Fax No. 846-2539
X x x.
VERIFICATION
AND ANTI-FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATION
X x x.
x x x."
