REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 12
CEBU CITY

IN THE MATTER OF
INTESTATE ESTATE OF
MARIO A. GONZALES

SPEC. PROC. CASE NO. R-CEB-17-0003-SP

For: Issuance of Letters of Administration

SOPHIA H. MEDINA
Petitioner,
x --------------------------------- x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
(pursuant to A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

I, SOPHIA H. MEDINA, of legal age, Filipino and with residence

address at 148 Singson Village, Guadalupe, Cebu City, after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

That the person examining me is Atty. Alen Joel R. Pita, with office
address at Unit 88, Apple One Equicom Tower, Cebu Business Park,
Mindanao Ave., Cebu City. The examination is being held at the same
address. I am answering his questions fully conscious that I do so under oath
and may face criminal liability for false testimony and perjury.

1. Question : Please tell me your personal circumstances?

Answer : I am Sophia H. Medina, of legal age, Filipino and

with residence address at 148 Singson Village,
Guadalupe, Cebu City.

2. Question : Are you the same Sophia H. Medina, the

petitioner of the issuance of letters of
administration case pending before RTC Branch
12, Cebu City involving the intestate estate of
Mario A. Gonzales and docketed as Sp. Proc. No.
R-CEB-17-0003-SP?
 Answer : Yes, sir, I am the same Sophia H. Medina.

3. Question : How are you related to the deceased, Mario A.

Gonzales?

Answer : I am the common law spouse of the deceased,

Mario A. Gonzales.

4. Question : How long had you been living together with the
deceased?

Answer : We had lived exclusively with each other as

husband and wife without the benefit of marriage,
despite being capacitated to marry each other, for
over a period of 10 years until his death. During
such period, we had acquired several properties
through our work and industry.

5. Question : When did the deceased, Mario A. Gonzales, die?

Answer : He died on 20 January 2017 as stated in his death

certificate.

6. Question : I am showing to you this photocopy of the death

certificate of the deceased which was attached as
Annex “A” of the petition and marked as Exhibit
“B” in the course of the hearing of the case. Is this
the one you are referring to?

Answer : Yes, sir, this is the death certificate.

7. Question : Where was the deceased last residing at the time

of his death?

Answer : The deceased was a resident of 148 Singson

Village, Guadalupe, Cebu City at the time of his
death. We are living together at the same house at
the time of his death, sir.

8. Question : I am showing to you a copy the latest driver’s

license identification card, BIR TIN identification
card, and internet service bill of the deceased
which were attached as Annex “B”, Annex “C”,
and Annex “D” in the petition and further marked
as Exhibit “C”, Exhibit “C-1”, and Exhibit “C-2”
respectively in the course of the hearing of the
case. How are these documents related to the
residence of the deceased at the time of his death?
 Answer : These are the very documents showing that the
deceased is a resident of 148 Singson Village,
Guadalupe, Cebu City at the time of his death.

9. Question : Do you know any surviving heirs of the

deceased?

Answer : Yes, sir. They are Luigi F. Gonzales, 28 years of

age, with residence address at Unit 84, City Suites
Tower, F. Ramos St., Cebu City and Judy F.
Gonzales, 26 years of age, with residence address
107 Madrid St., Villa del Rio Subdivision,
Bacayan, Cebu City.

10.Question : How are these surviving heirs related to the

deceased?

Answer : They are the legitimate children of the deceased

in his former marriage with Emily L. Fernandez
which was judicially declared void on 27
September 2000.

11.Question : Do you have any proof that indeed such marriage

was judicially declared void?

Answer : I have here the judicial decree of nullity of

marriage issued on 27 September 2000 by Judge
Arthur Sage R. Caparas of RTC Branch 17, Cebu
City. The said judicial decree effectively and
legally nullified the marriage between the
deceased and Emily L. Fernandez.

12.Question : I am marking this judicial decree of nullity of

marriage issued on 27 September 2000 by Judge
Arthur Sage R. Caparas of RTC Branch 17, Cebu
City, which is attached as Annex “A” in this
judicial affidavit, as Exhibit “H”, which you
presented, affix my signature and attach to your
affidavit to form part of it. Do you confirm my
action?

Answer : Yes, I do.

13.Question : Are you aware of any aware of pending debts or

obligations of the deceased?

Answer : Yes, sir, considering that I am a confidant of the

 deceased in his businesses.

14.Question : Who are these creditors and how much are the
respective amounts of the debts?

Answer : So far as known to me, the names of the creditors

and the respective amounts of the debts are the
following:
(1) Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) –
Cebu Branch with residence address at Unit
14, TGU Tower, Cebu I.T. Park, Cebu
City. Amount of the debt is three million,
six hundred thousand, eight hundred pesos
(Php 3, 600, 800.00);
(2) Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
(Metrobank) – Cebu Branch with residence
address at Basement Level 1, Ayala Center
Cebu, Cebu Business Park, Cebu City.
Amount of the debt is three million, one
hundred fifty thousand pesos (Php 3, 150,
000.00); and
(3) JGC Financing Company, Inc. with
residence address at Unit 23, Super Metro
Colon Bldg., Junquera St., Cebu City.
Amount of the debt is one million, eight
hundred thousand pesos (Php 1, 800,
000.00).

15.Question : I am showing to you these copies of the demand

letters each of BPI, Metrobank, and JGC
Financing Company which were marked as
Exhibit “E”, Exhibit “E-1”, and Exhibit “E-2” in
the course of the hearing of the case. How are
these documents related to the pending debts of
the deceased?

Answer : These are the very documents showing the

creditors and respective amounts of the debts of
the deceased.

16.Question : To the best of your knowledge, how much is the

probable gross value of the estate of the
deceased?

Answer : To the best of my knowledge, the probable gross

value of the estate is at least Fifty Million Pesos
(Php50,000,000.00).
17.Question : What are the properties consisting the estate?

Answer : The properties consisting the estate are the

following:
(1) Residential house with an assessed value
of twenty-two million, eighty-one
thousand, five hundred thirty pesos (Php
22, 081, 530.00);
(2) Commercial building with an assessed
value of twelve million, eighty-one
thousand, five hundred thirty pesos (Php
12, 081, 530.00);
(3) Parcel of agricultural land with an assessed
value of one million pesos (Php 1, 000,
000.00);
(4) Bank account with deposit amounting to
nine million, seven hundred twenty-five
thousand, four hundred seventy-five pesos
and ninety centavos (Php 9, 725, 475.90);
(5) Shares of stocks with a market value of five
million pesos (Php 5, 000, 000.00);
(6) Unpaid credit amounting to five million
pesos (Php 5, 000, 000.00);
(7) Mitsubishi Pajero Sport vehicle with an
assessed value of three hundred thirty
thousand pesos (Php 330, 000.00); and
(8) Toyota Corolla vehicle with an assessed
value of one hundred ten pesos (Php 110
000.00).

18.Question : I am showing to you these copies of an

assessment report of a residential house,
assessment report of a commercial building,
assessment report of an agricultural land,
certificate of bank deposit, certificate of stock,
promissory note, and assessment report of motor
vehicles which were marked as Exhibit “D”,
Exhibit “D-1”, Exhibit “D-2”, Exhibit “D-3”,
Exhibit “D-4”, Exhibit “D-5”, and Exhibit “D-6”
respectively in the course of the hearing of the
case. How are these documents related to the
properties consisting the estate?

Answer : These are the very documents showing the

properties consisting the estate and their
respective amounts.

19.Question : Do you have any idea whether the deceased

 executed and left a will?

Answer : None, sir.

20.Question : To date, does anyone had accounted, liquidated,

settled, and partitioned the estate of the deceased?

Answer : None that I know, sir.

21.Question : Have you been charged nor convicted of any

crime or offense involving moral turpitude

Answer : No, sir.

22.Question : Do you have any proof to support such fact?

Answer : I have here my latest NBI Clearance and Police

Clearance showing that I have no criminal or any
other adverse record on such offices.

23.Question : I am marking this NBI Clearance and Police

Clearance, which were attached as Annex “I” and
Annex “J” in the petition, as Exhibit “I” and
Exhibit “I-1” respectively which you presented,
affix my signature and attach to your affidavit to
form part of it. Do you confirm my action?

Answer : Yes, I do.

24.Question : So what is it that you would like to ask now?

Answer : I would like to ask and offer myself to be

appointed as the regular administratrix of the
estate of the deceased because I am qualified,
competent, and willing to be appointed as such
and that I possesses all the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications.

25.Question : So are you willing to faithfully discharge the

duties of an administratrix such as to protect the
integrity of the estate, to recover properties, to
settle obligations of the estate, and to preserve the
estate of the deceased until its distribution to the
rightful heirs?

Answer : Yes, I am willing.

26.Question : Are you also willing to give a bond in such sum

 and under such conditions as the Honorable Court
may fix and impose?

Answer : Yes, sir. I am willing.

27.Question : Do you have something to say and add to your

statement?

Answer : None, sir.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24 th day

of February 2017 at Cebu City, Philippines.

SOPHIA H. MEDINA
Affiant
Driver’s License No. G06-14-016393
Expiry Date: January 7, 2018

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24th day of February

2017 at Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Driver’s License
I.D. with photograph and signature appearing therein as competent evidence
and proof of identity pursuant to the notarial law.

ALEN JOEL R. PITA

Notary Public
Notary Public Commission No. 13196,
Cebu City 12/31/2018
Roll No. 66725
PTR No. 8332103, Cebu City 5/9/2016
IBP No. 694130, Cebu City 4/15/2016
MCLE Compliance – Admitted to Bar 2016
CAPARAS DIVINAGRACIA NIVERA RONULO & PITA LAW OFFICES
Unit 88, Apple One Equicom Tower, Cebu Business Park,
Mindanao Ave., Cebu City

Doc. No. ; 12
Page No. ; 15
Book No. ; 01
Series of 2017.
 NOTICE AND EXPLANATION

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC 12

Greetings,

Please submit, and please take notice of the foregoing judicial

affidavit for the kind consideration of this Honorable Court immediately
upon receipt sans presence of counsel.

The undersigned informs this Honorable Court that the counsel of the
opposing party was served with copies of the foregoing through registered
mail due to the distance and lack of office personnel.

Thank you.

ALEN JOEL R. PITA

Copy furnished

CHARLES G. DIVINAGRACIA Received by: _________

Counsel for Oppositor Date & Time: ________
10th Floor, 8 Rockwell corner Plaza
Drive Rockwell Center,
Hidalgo, Makati, 1200 Metro Manila

LUIGI F. GONZALES Received by: _________

Oppositor Date & Time: ________
Unit 84, City Suites Tower,
F. Ramos St., Cebu City
 LAWYER’S ATTESTATION CLAUSE

I, ALEN JOEL R. PITA, of legal age, Filipino, single with office

address at Unit 88, Apple One Equicom Tower, Cebu Business Park,
Mindanao Ave., Cebu City, after having duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the counsel in this instant case who conducted the

examination;

2. That I have faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the

questions I asked and the corresponding answers that the witness
gave me; and

3. That neither I nor any other person then present or assisting me

coached the witness regarding the latter’s answer.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24 th day

of February 2017 at Cebu City, Philippines.

ALEN JOEL R. PITA

Affiant
Driver’s License No. G06-14-016394
Expiry Date: April 7, 2018

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24th day of February

2017 at Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Driver’s License
I.D. with photograph and signature appearing therein as competent evidence
and proof of identity pursuant to the notarial law.

AARON SAGE R. CAPARAS

Notary Public
Notary Public Commission No. 13196,
Cebu City 12/31/2018
Roll No. 66725
PTR No. 8332103, Cebu City 5/9/2016
IBP No. 694130, Cebu City 4/15/2016
MCLE Compliance – Admitted to Bar 2016
CAPARAS DIVINAGRACIA NIVERA RONULO & PITA LAW OFFICES
Unit 88, Apple One Equicom Tower, Cebu Business Park,
Mindanao Ave., Cebu City

Doc. No. ; 13
Page No. ; 15
Book No. ; 01
Series of 2017.
 ANN
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7th JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 17
CEBU CITY

MARIO A. GONZALES
Petitioner, CIVIL CASE NO. 17-165
For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage on the
ground of
- versus – Psychological Incapacity
pursuant to Article
36 of the Family Code.

EMILY L. FERNANDEZ-GONZALES
Respondent,
x--------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

On April 26, 1995, Mario A. Gonzales and Emily L. Fernandez, then 28 and
23 years old, respectively, got married in civil rites held in Mandaue City,
Cebu. Emily L. Fernandez was already pregnant then. They had an infant
who was found by medical reports as malnourished. Mario A. Gonzales
alleged that the infant’s being sickly was caused by Emily’s heavy drinking
and smoking during her pregnancy and while the former is still with the
latter.

The couple lived together under one roof. Mario A. Gonzales worked as an
Engineer, while Emily was a sales lady at a nearby department store.

Sometime in March of 1997, Emily left the home which she shared with
Mario. Mario subsequently found out that Emily went to work in Dubai. At
the time the instant petition was filed, Emily had not returned yet.

On February 18, 1998, Mario filed a Petition for the declaration of nullity of

his marriage with Emily. He alleged that Emily was insecure, extremely
jealous, outgoing and prone to regularly resorting to any pretext to be able to
leave the house. She thoroughly enjoyed the night life, and drank and
smoked heavily even when she was pregnant. Further, Emily refused to
perform even the most essential household chores of cleaning and cooking.
According to Mario, Emily had not exhibited the foregoing traits and
behavior during their whirlwind courtship and this continued even in their
marriage.
Mario likewise alleged that Emily was not remorseful about the many times
their child was hospitalized for being malnourished. She lived as if she were
single and was unmindful of her husband’s needs. She was self-centered,
selfish and immature. When Mario confronted her about her behavior, she
showed indifference. She eventually left their home without informing
Mario. Mario later found out that she left for an overseas employment in
Dubai.

Before Mario decided to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage with Emily, he consulted the latter’s friends. They informed him
that Emily came from a broken family and was left to be cared for by her
aunts and nannies. The foregoing circumstance must have contributed to her
sense of insecurity and difficulty in adjusting to married life.

To ease their marital problems, Mario sought professional guidance and

submitted himself to a psychological evaluation by Clinical Psychologist
Rolly B. Nivera (Dr. Nivera). Dr. Nivera found him as “amply aware of his
marital roles” and “capable of maintaining a mature and healthy
heterosexual relationship.” On the other hand, Dr. Nivera assessed Emily’s
personality through the data she had gathered from Mario and his cousin,
Rodelito Mayo (Rodelito), who knew Emily way back in college.

Emily is the eldest among four siblings. She is a college graduate. She
belongs to a middle class family. Her father is an overseas contract worker,
while her mother is a housewife. At the time Dr. Nivera prepared her report,
Emily was employed in Dubai and romantically involved with another man.

According to Rodelito, Emily verbally abused and physically harmed Mario

during the couple’s fights. Emily is also ill-tempered and carefree, while
Mario is jolly, kind, hardworking and family-oriented husband.

Dr. Nivera diagnosed Emily to be suffering from a Narcissistic Personality

Disorder with anti-social traits. Dr. Nivera concluded that Emily and
Mario’s relationship is not founded on mutual love, trust, respect,
commitment and fidelity to each other. Hence, Dr. Nivera recommended the
propriety of declaring the nullity of the couple’s marriage.

In drawing her conclusions, Dr. Nivera explained that:

“The said disorder [of Emily] is considered to be severe,

serious, grave, permanent and chronic in proportion and is
incurable by any form of clinical intervention. It has already
been deeply embedded within her system as it was found to
have started as early as her childhood years. Because of such, it
has caused her to be inflexible, maladaptive and functionally
impaired especially with regards to heterosexual dealings.
 Such disorder of [Emily] is mainly characterized by
grandiosity, need for admiration and lack of empathy, along with
her pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others,
which utterly distorted her perceptions and views especially in
terms of a fitting marital relationship. Such disorder manifested
in [Emily] through her unrelenting apathy, sense of entitlement
and arrogance. Throughout her union with [Mario], she has
exhibited a heightened sense of self as seen in her marked
inability to show proper respect for her husband. x x x She is too
headstrong that most of the time, she would do things her own
way and would not pay close attention to what her husband
needed. She had been a wife who constantly struggled for power
and dominance in their relationship and [Mario], being too
considerate to her, was often subjected to her control. x x x She is
into many vices and loved hanging out with her friends at night[,]
and she even got involved in an illicit relationship, which was
still going on up to the present time. x x x.

The root cause of [Emily’s] personality aberration can be

said to have emanated from the various forms of unfavorable
factors in her milieu way back as early as her childhood years[,]
which is the crucial stage in the life of a person as this is the time
when the individual’s character and behavior are shaped. [Emily]
came from a dysfunctional family with lenient and tolerating
parents[,] who never impose any restrictions [upon] their
children. Considering such fact, she apparently failed to feel the
love and affection of the nurturing figures that she had[,] who
were supposed to be the first to show concern [for] her. x x x She
has acquired a domineering character as she was not taught to
have boundaries in her actions because of the laxity she had from
her caregivers and also because she grew up to be the eldest in
the brood. She sees to it that she is the one always followed with
regards to making decisions and always mandates people to
submit to her wishes. She has not acquired the very essence of
morality [and] has certainly learned set of unconstructive traits
that further made her too futile to assume mature roles. Morals
and values were not instilled in her young mind that as she went
on with her life, she never learned to restrain herself from ill
things even if she is amply aware of the depravity of her actions.

The psychological incapacity of [Emily] is of a juridical

antecedence as it was already in her system even prior to the
solemnization of her marriage with [Mario]. x x x.”

On February 18, 2009, Mario filed before the RTC a Petition for the
Declaration of Nullity of his marriage with Emily. Substituted service of
summons was made upon Emily through her aunt, Susana Rosita. Emily
filed no answer and did not attend any of the proceedings before the RTC.
During the trial, the testimonies of Mario, Dr. Nivera and Rodelito were
offered as evidence. Mario and Rodelito described Emily as outgoing,
carefree, and irresponsible. She is the exact opposite of Mario, who is
conservative and preoccupied with his work. On her part, Dr. Nivera
reiterated her findings in the psychological report dated December 29, 1998.

Hence this court declares the marriage between Mario and Emily as null and
void on account of the latter’s psychological incapacity. The court cites the
following as grounds that led them to the aforementioned conclusion:

The totality of the evidence presented by [Mario] warrants [the] grant of the

petition.

Reconciliation between the parties under the circumstances is nil. For the
best interest of the parties, it is best that the legal bond between them be
severed.

The testimonies of [Mario] and his witness [Rodelito] portray the miserable
life [Mario] had with [Emily] who is a Narcissistic Personality Disordered
person with anti-social traits and who does not treat him as her husband.
[Mario] and [Emily] are separated in fact since the year 2006. [Emily]
abandoned [Mario] without telling the latter where to go. x x x Had it not for
the insistence of [Mario] that he would not know the whereabouts of his
wife. The law provides that [a] husband and [a] wife are obliged to live
together, [and] observe mutual love, respect and fidelity. x x x For all intents
and purposes, however, [Emily] was in a quandary on what it really means.

From the testimony of [Mario], it was established that [Emily] failed to

comply with the basic marital obligations of mutual love, respect, mutual
help and support. [Mario] tried his best to have their marriage saved but
[Emily] did not cooperate with him. [Emily] is unmindful of her marital
obligations.

The Court has no reason to doubt the testimony of Dr. Nivera, a clinical
psychologist with sufficient authority to speak on the subject of
psychological incapacity. He examined [Mario], and was able to gather
sufficient data and information about [Emily]. x x x This [Narcissistic]
personality disorder of [Emily] is ingrained in her personality make-up, so
grave and so permanent, incurable and difficult to treat. It is conclusive that
this personal incapacity leading to psychological incapacity is already pre-
existing before the marriage and was only manifested after. It has become
grave, permanent and incurable.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS petitioner declaring the marriage

between the petitioner and the respondent on September 27, 2000 as NULL
AND VOID AB INITIO due to the psychological incapacity of the parties
pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

SO ORDERED.

Cebu City, Philippines, September 27, 2000

ARTHUR SAGE R. CAPARAS

Presiding Judge