You are on page 1of 5

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Region 6
Iloilo City
Branch 29

DHENVER SOLIVA,
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. I – 22


For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage

VIVIENNE BERNARDIO SOLIVA,


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 ,Monterosa, Iloilo 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 Villa Iloilo City, a copy of their marriage
certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

3. A child was born in wedlock, Benjamin Soliva, 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 San Agustin in high school.
Back then, petitioner had a girlfriend, Tina, 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.
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 respondent’s 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 petitioner’s parents, who were devout catholics and followers


of the conservative mater dei, came to know about respondent’s
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 petitioner’s 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
respondent’s 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 petitioner’s 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 respondent’s 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 camel’s 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, 2018


BELLEZA ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
4th Floor Courtyard Tower Enterprise
Road, Iloilo Business Park, Mandurriao,
Iloilo City, 5000 Iloilo
IBP No. 827847, 6/8/14, IC
PTR No. 576784, 6/8/16, IC
Attorney’s Roll No. 374435
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0989699

VERIFICATION
I, DHENVER SOLIVA, 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.

DHENVER SOLIVA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 8th day of May


2018, affiant exhibited to me his Drivers License dated February
20, 2002 issued in Iloilo City.

Doc. No. 3
Page No. 3
Book No. II
Series of 2018.