This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
BENJO C. BERNARDO, Petitioner, - Versus Civil Case No. ___________ For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO, Respondent. X-------------------------X PETITION COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges: 1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City, where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal processes of this Honorable Court; 2. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”; 3. A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex “B”; 4. In retrospect petitioner and respondent were childhood friends, growing up in the same neighborhood in Project 8 and were even schoolmates at St. Patrick School in high school. Back then, petitioner had a girlfriend, Cristina, who was respondent’s friend as well. After he and Cristina broke up, he lived in with another girlfriend, whom he found out was married. Frustrated, he returned to his parents’ home and met respondent again after a long while. This time, they were already college graduates and were both scouting for employment. But as it was difficult to get an office job then, they decided to be business partners by putting up a small food cart business selling fish balls.
they prevailed upon petitioner to marry respondent. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood. Aside from being business partners. She left and went back to her parents. Respondent refused to live again with petitioner. 5. He however sent money for respondent’s medical needs as she was about to give birth.Page 02. Soon petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. 6. He however vowed to support their child. Before he left. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. they were married in haste and in a simple church ceremony. 8. 9. Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl. 7. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and respondent to have their respective lovers. having had a long list of boyfriends. who were devout catholics and followers of the conservative mater dei. Despite his protestations. came to know about respondent’s pregnancy. they frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondent’s pregnancy. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to time and giving financial support to their child. 10. petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. no one giving in for the other. Respondent too became gainfully employed. Despite financial support coming from petitioner. A month after getting married or in January 2003. respondent felt uncomfortable at her in-laws’ home. Their first month of being married was marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each other and were constantly at odds. the newly-weds lived with petitioner’s parents. they were likewise attracted to each other physically. he talked with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for . When petitioner’s parents. Before his tourist visa expired. This arrangement went on until petitioner’s student visa was approved and he was slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. 11. petitioner flew to California to work as caregiver. It became convenient for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. although there was no emotional attachments to one another.
since both of them distrust each other. convinced of the futility of his efforts. While abroad. Petitioner and respondent used to communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home. To date. they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for reconciliation. 15. 13. so to speak. Petitioner. They both decided to try and live together again as a family. which affected her sense of rational judgment and responsibility. Petitioner came back in January 2008.them to get back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his studies abroad. petitioner found out that respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan. These traits reveal her psychological . Page 03. 12. the guy maintained communications with her. they frequent arguments and disagreements. decided that he deserves to start life anew with feelings of hope for a brighter future since there is obviously no hope that respondent can cope up with her obligations as wife. 14. he not only studied but worked as well. respondent was found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations of marriage borne from her lack of maturity. who had remained in touch with her. it was respondent’s turn to go abroad to work in Taiwan. And worst. 16. respondent came home too. This was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. taking in odd jobs to support himself and his family. After evaluation. In 2006. Worse. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a psychological evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope up with the essential obligations of marriage. not long after. Unfortunately. thus. respondent had not severed her relationship with him.
PRAYER WHEREFORE. i. her lack of effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility. otherwise peculiar to infants. That said psychological defect or illness is grave. 19. MARIA LOURDES PAREDESGARCIA . 36 of the New Family Code of the Philippines and is more appropriately labeled “Anti-Social and Narcissistic personality disorder . it is most respectfully prayed that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be declared a nullity. Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity. Petitioner is also filing this case under Art. by being psychologically immature and failing to perform her responsibilities as wife.. Page 04. 68 of the New Family Code which provides that husband and wife are obliged to live together. May 12. serious and incurable and existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its existence. the same be adopted by this Court and in the absence thereof. 18.incapacity under Art. a fair and just settlement of their rights and obligations as parents be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. 36 of the same Code as the respondent manifested apparent personality disorder and psychological dysfunction. It is likewise prayed that if and when parties are able to enter into an extrajudicial settlement as to custody and joint parenting. respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support. That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in the course of their marriage. premises considered. San Juan.e. We pray for such other reliefs. 2009 Atty. 17. observe mutual love. Respondent showed no concern for her obligation towards her family in violation of Art. just and equitable under the premises.
. Rodriguez Sr. Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my own personal knowledge.. 33476 MCLE Compliance II – 0009328 Dtd. or Court of Appeals. 764814 dtd. March 27. c) If I should learned that similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before such tribunals or bodies. 01-07-09Pasig City PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/09/ Rizal Roll No. b) to the best of my knowledge. affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in _________________. E. under oath. no such action or proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court. Quezon City IBP No. BERNARDO Affiant SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of May 2009. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the preparation of the same petition.Counsel for Petitioner Wheels Executive Suites Wheels Bldg. Ave. states: 01. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum shopping. 02. BENJO C. 03. 2008 VERIFICATION I.. BERNARDO. I shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court of agency where the original pleading and sworn certification have been filed. BANJO C. Page 05. or any other tribunal or agency. of legal age. I hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues before the Supreme Court.
________ Page No. ________ Book No. _______ Series of 2009. No.Doc. .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.