Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
San Juan City
Branch ______

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 respondents 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.
Page 02.

5. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.

6. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married
in haste and in a simple church ceremony.

7. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. 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, no one giving in for the other.

8. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to

work as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she
was about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner,
respondent felt uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her
parents.

9. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and
attempted to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent
refused to live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy
from time to time and giving financial support to their child.

10. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together.
Soon petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives.
Respondent too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both
petitioner and respondent to have their respective lovers.

11.This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, 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 them to
get back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.
Page 03.

12. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.

13.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

14. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.

15.Petitioner, convinced of the futility of his efforts, 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;

16. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a

psychological evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope up with the
essential obligations of marriage. After evaluation, respondent was
found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential
marital obligations of marriage borne from her lack of maturity, which
affected her sense of rational judgment and responsibility. These traits
reveal her psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the New Family Code
of the Philippines and is more appropriately labeled Anti-Social and
Narcissistic personality disorder ;

17.Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity.

Respondent showed no concern for her obligation towards her family in
violation of Art. 68 of the New Family Code which provides that husband
and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity and render mutual help and support.. Petitioner is also filing this
case under Art. 36 of the same Code as the respondent manifested
apparent personality disorder and psychological dysfunction, i.e. her lack
of effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise
peculiar to infants, by being psychologically immature and failing to
perform her responsibilities as wife;
 Page 04.

18.That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable

and existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its
existence;

19.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be declared a nullity. It is likewise
prayed that if and when parties are able to enter into an extrajudicial settlement
as to custody and joint parenting, the same be adopted by this Court and in the
absence thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and obligations as
parents be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. We pray for such other reliefs,
just and equitable under the premises.

San Juan. May 12, 2009

Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA

Counsel for Petitioner
Wheels Executive Suites
Wheels Bldg., E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave.,
Quezon City
IBP No. 764814 dtd. 01-07-09Pasig City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/09/ Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2008

VERIFICATION

I, BANJO C. BERNARDO, of legal age, under oath, states:

01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;

02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of
my own personal knowledge;
Page 05.

03. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum shopping,

I hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; b) to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other
tribunal or agency; c) If I should learned that similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before such tribunals or bodies, 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.

BENJO C. BERNARDO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of May 2009,

affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.

Doc. No. ________

Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2009.