REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MAKATI CITY
Branch 140

ISABELLE QUIRINO SAN

JUAN
Petitioner,
-versus- Civil Case No. 17-1000
For: Judicial Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage with Prayer for Sole Custody
of Minor Child
MIKHAIL LIRA SAN JUAN
Respondent.
x---------------------------------x

PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

Petitioner ISABELLE Q. SAN JUAN (hereinafter “Petitioner”), by

counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

Nature of the Petition

This is a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage pursuant to

the following provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines:

a. “Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at

the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”

Both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply

with the essential marital obligations, already then existing at the
time of the celebration of the marriage and even prior to said
celebration of the marriage, but such incapacity was not
 apparent but became manifest only after the celebration of said
marriage.

b. “Article 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live

together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
render mutual help and support.”

Petitioner and Respondent’s failure to fulfill their

obligation to live together, observe mutual love and respect to
and render mutual help and support to each other, is a
manifestation of their utter insensitivity and inability to
understand the meaning of marriage and to comply with his
essential marital obligations.

c. “Article 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her

duties to the conjugal union or commits acts which tend to
bring danger, dishonor or injury to the other or to the
family, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for
relief. “

Respondent’s neglect of duties to the conjugal union,

which brought danger, dishonor, and injury to his family is a
manifestation of his utter insensitivity and inability to
understand the meaning of marriage and to comply with his
essential marital obligations.

Parties

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, married, with residence at

No.1, Amorsolo St., San Lorenzo Village, Makati City, which has
been her residence since September 2015, more than six months
immediately preceding the filing of this petition, and may be served
with processes and orders of this Court at the said address.

2. Respondent Mikhail L. San Juan (hereinafter “Respondent”) is

of legal age, Filipino, married to the Petitioner, with residence at ABC
Building, Rockwell, Makati City and may be served with processes
and orders of this Court at the said address.
3. Petitioner and Respondent are husband and wife, having been
married on August 18, 2013 at the Hall of Justice of Muntinlupa City
by Judge Marilou Barlaan.

4. During their marriage, they begot one child, Michelin San Juan
(“Michelin”) who was born on March 31, 2014 at the Makati Medical
Center and who is now three (3) years of age.

5. During the celebration of their marriage, no real property was

acquired by the parties, as evidenced by a Certification issued by the
the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa and Makati stating that there are
no real properties registered in the name of Sps. Isabelle and Mikhail
San Juan.

Factual Background of the Case

6. The psychological incapacity of both parties is shown by the

following narration of facts and circumstances which exhibit their
psychological behavior and manifestations:

a. Petitioner and Respondent came to know each other at the wedding

of Petitioner’s cousin in Muntinlupa City on June 5, 2013. Soon
thereafter, Respondent courted Petitioner and after a week of
courtship, they became sweethearts.

b. Petitioner found Respondent very interesting then. He was

always highly-strung, adventurous and daring. On the other hand,
Petitioner described herself as a pleaser who would do everything
to make him feel comfortable, sexually gratified and happy.

c. Despite the intense and electrifying start of their relationship,

the Petitioner and Respondent had no serious plans of marriage
much less serious conversations about building a future together
and having children and a family together.

d. However, the Petitioner and Respondents engaged in pre-

marital sex which resulted in Petitioner’s pregnancy.
e. On account of her pregnancy and to save her family’s honor,
Petitioner agreed to get married to Respondent despite the fact
that she was still studying and still dependent for support from
her parents, while Mikhail was a call center agent.

f. On August 18, 2013, the Petitioner and Respondent were

married in simple civil rites before the Hall of Justice of
Muntinlupa and was officiated by one Marilou Barlaan. At the
time of their marriage, Petitioner was twenty (20) years old, while
Respondent was twenty-five (25) years of age.

g. After the marriage rites, they resided at the house of

Petitioner’s parents at Poblacion, Muntinlupa City. Petitioner
continued her studies at San Beda College - Alabang where she
was a third year Legal Management student. On the other hand,
Respondent opted to remain as a call center agent at Convergys as
a Social Media Specialist.

h. During the time that they were living together as husband and
wife, Respondent will always come home during the wee hours of
the morning, spending and enjoying his nights after work with his
“barkada.”

i. Respondent would sleep during daytime and leave for work

just as when Petitioner arrives home from school. This became the
source of their daily quarrels and misunderstandings.

j. On March 31, 2014, Petitioner gave birth to their son, Michelin

at Asian Hospital and Medical Center. Petitioner’s parents
shouldered the hospital expenses. Even during this time,
Respondent’s bachelor lifestyle, specifically his regular drinking
sprees with friends, continued, to the detriment of his family.

k. After graduating from college in April 2015, Petitioner was

hired as an office secretary in a law firm in Makati City. Their
marital relationship became worse as they only see each other for a
few hours everyday.
l. During Respondent’s free day, he would spend most of the
time playing with their son, Michelin, and would not mind the
presence of the Petitioner.

m. When requested to discuss their marital woes, Respondent

would always find an excuse not to discuss the matter. Thus,
when Petitioner insists of expressing her sentiments, they would
always end up arguing with each other.

n. Respondent realized that they are becoming a big burden to

Petitioner’s parents, thus, he convinced Petitioner to transfer to the
house of Respondent’s parents in San Antonio, Makati. They
started living with Respondent’s parents on September 2015;
however, Respondent continued with his carefree lifestyle which
resulted in more complications to their relationship.

o. Sometime last January 25, 2016, Petitioner was invited by her

friend to attend a birthday party at Strumms, Bel-Air, Makati.
After a few minutes, she stood up to go to the ladies’ room.

p. On her way to the toilet, she was surprised when she saw
Respondent in one of the corner spots of the bar in the company of
several gay friends, and to her disappointment, he was acting like
one.

q. Petitioner did not allow herself to be seen by Respondent.

Instead, she returned to her table, excused herself from her group
and left the area. She immediately went home and patiently
waited for Respondent to arrive.

r. When Respondent finally came home at around 3:00 o’clock in

the morning of January 26, 2016, she confronted him about what
she saw inside the bar and expressed her shock and disgust over
her discovery.

s. Despite being surprised, Respondent readily confessed to

Petitioner about his personal preference, his being happy and
comfortable being in the company of gay people, and claimed he
was attracted to both sexes.
t.     Respondent then shouted, “Tumigil ka nga, e ikaw nga yung
maraming lalaki dyan, at wag mo sabihing hindi”, and then boxed
her face and stomach while hurling expletives. Petitioner could
not do anything by the sudden and unprovoked actions of the
respondent and cried until the respondent stopped.

u.     After that, Respondent kept expressing suspicions that the

Petitioner is cheating on him, and constantly came home drunk
and inflicting physical injuries on her, only to make up for it the
next day by courting her. Thinking it would change, Petitioner
forgave him.

v.     The charade of change only became apparent to Petitioner when

Respondent came home to find her talking on the cellphone with a
friend from work, and went on berserk again. This time the
Respondent took the cellphone and threw it on the floor, and
stepped on it, breaking the latter. The Respondent kicked
Petitioner multiple times until she coughed blood, and shouted at
Petitioner that she is a whore.  

w. Later on, their quarrels aggravated. Any amount of respect

remaining between them was further eroded by their frequent
arguments and Respondent’s worsening physical and verbal
abuses.

x.   These abuses started more often when they were alone, and
when Respondent would come to her house drunk and asking her
to reconcile, which would change when he sees the Petitioner
using her phone, and adamantly claim that she was cheating on
him with others, and then it would end with his severe physical
abuse on her, sometimes even in front of Petitioner’s parents and
their son Michelin.*

y. This last incident became the last straw for Petitioner, who
failed to discover such personality, character, and psychological
condition of the Respondent because of the short courtship. Hence,
Petitioner decided to live separately from the Respondent.
 z. Respondent did not visit his family often, and if he did he
would be violent and paranoid, and after a while, did not inquire
anymore as to the status of his wife and son. He acted as a stranger
to his family and remained as such up to the present.

aa. Both have been indifferent to each other. Both have, by their
own choice, chosen a life separate from each other.

7. Petitioner and Respondent, since their separation have

somewhat moved on with their lives; living separately but normal
lives, unburdened by the travails and recriminations of a failed
marriage where Petitioner and Respondent apparently were
incapacitated to fulfill the obligations of marriage embodied under
Article 68 of the Family Code.

8. Petitioner had engaged the services of Dr. Angelo dela Cruz,

B.S., M.D., MHA, M.A., LL. B. (“Dr. dela Cruz”), a Clinical
Psychologist and resident physician of Lyceum of the Philippines
University, for the determination of psychological evaluation of both
parties, who will be presented as an expert witness in support of the
instant petition.

9.          It was only after Petitioner had gone to Dr. dela Cruz that she,
with her parents had asked Mark San Juan, the Respondent’s Uncle,
and Ninoy Sartillo, the Respondent’s childhood friend, to please see
Dr. dela Cruz to end the abuse and the failed marriage.  

Discussion

10. Psychological incapacity as a ground for nullity of marriage

refers to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
marriage which, as expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code,
include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love,
respect and fidelity; and render help and support.
11. In the case of Santos vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court
declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability as follows:

Justice Sempio-Diy cites with approval the work of Dr.

Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese
of Manila (Branch 1), who opines that psychological
incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be
grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it
must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge
only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it
were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the
party involved.

12. More definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application

of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines were handed
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Republic v. Court of
Appeals (Molina)to wit:

From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations,

the following guidelines in the interpretation and
application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed
down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:

1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage

belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in
favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage
and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in
the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish
the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus,
our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the
Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It
decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby
protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties.
Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the
state. xxx
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a)
medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not
physical. although its manifestations and/or symptoms may
be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the
parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such
an extent that the person could not have known the
obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not
have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example
of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the
application of the provision under the principle of  ejusdem
generis,  nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness and its incapacitating nature explained.
Expert evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist and
clinical psychologists.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time

of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show
that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged
their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be
perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have
attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or

clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse,
not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those
not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or
employment in a job. xxx

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the

disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted
as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright
incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse
integral element in the personality structure that effectively
 incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby
complying with the obligations essential to marriage.

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced

by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such
non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the
petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the
decision.

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate

Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be
given great respect by our courts. xxx

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or

fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the
state. No decision shall he handed down unless the Solicitor
General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the
decision, briefly staring therein his reasons for his agreement
or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The
Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall
submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days
from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of
the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the
equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated
under Canon 1095.

13. The foregoing pronouncements have remained as the

precedential guidelines to consider in filing a petition for nullity of
marriage on ground of psychological incapacity.

14.  While firmly certain of the presence of and applicability of said

guidelines to the current petition, the same are not to be treated and
applied with rigidity so as to render it inflexible. It is to be considered
that the Honorable Court’s appreciation of the factual circumstances
and antecedents, especially the diagnosis of the parties are
paramount, in order to approach each case individually and to
render an intelligent and judicious judgment in accordance with law
and conscience.
Psychological Incapacity of the Parties

15. Based on the results of the psychological tests, clinical interview

with the Petitioner as well as the background data gathered from the
respective families and relatives of both parties, and the marital
history of the parties, Dr. dela Cruz found Respondent to be
psychologically incapacitated to understand and comply with the
essential marital obligations.

16. Based on the clinical interview and narrative of informants Toni

P. Quirino (Petitioner’s father), Mark San Juan (Respondent’s Uncle), and
Ninoy Sartillo (Respondent’s childhood friend), Dr. dela Cruz found
Respondent to be afflicted with Dependent Personality Disorder, Paranoid
Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Passive-Aggressive
Personality Disorder; also known as Mixed Personality Disorder or
Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified based on DSM-5
classification.

17. Dr. dela Cruz determined the root cause of Respondent’s

disorders as founded on history psycho-developmental fixation during
childhood secondary to sibling rivalry, mortal punishment and sexual
abuse in his psycho-developmental years. Dr. dela Cruz explained:

The root causes of respondent’s behavior are founded on

history psycho-developmental fixation during childhood
secondary to sibling rivalry, mortal punishment and sexual
abuse in his psycho-developmental years. He likewise was
unable to outgrow his special affinity towards his mother.
He was a product of a dysfunctional family home. The
defective child rearing and spoiled upbringing of
respondent are root causes to these disorders.

18. The psychologist characterized the nature of Respondent’s disorders

as follows:

Dependent Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality

Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Passive-
Aggressive Personality Disorder; also known as Mixed
Personality Disorder or Personality Disorder Not Otherwise
Specified on the part of respondent are grave, permanent
and incurable abnormalities existing at the time of the
 celebration of marriage whose overt manifestations
emerged only thereafter.  No amount of psychological
treatment and intervention would control or cure the grave
and continuous features of the abnormality.

19. In the case at bar, it is evident that the characteristics of psychological

incapacity, i.e., gravity, antecedence and incurability, as set forth in the
Molina case, were attendant, establishing respondent’s incapacity.

Gravity

20. From the evidence adduced it can be said that Respondent cannot
carry out the normal and ordinary duties of marriage and family
shouldered by any average couple existing under ordinary circumstances
of life and work.

21. Respondent is totally incapable of observing mutual love, respect and

fidelity as well as to provide support to his wife and child. Ever since the
start of the marriage Respondent had left all the household concerns and
the care of their child to Petitioner. Likewise, worthy of serious
consideration is Respondent’s propensity to continue his apathy,
alcoholism, and consistent infliction of physical and emotional abuse to
Petitioner, and his deceitful and habitual and continuous evasion of his
obligation more of than not had led to the filing of this Petition.

22. No less than Dr. dela Cruz himself declared, based on his
appreciation and expertise and on the interviews conducted with the
relevant witnesses, that the disorders afflicting the Respondent are grave
and permanent, sufficient to paralyze them to fully understand and more
importantly, to comply with the essential marital obligations.

Root Cause and Juridical Antecedence

23. Before the marriage, Petitioner was not aware of her and
Respondent’s personality disorder and it was only after marriage that it
begun to surface.

24. Dr. dela Cruz declared that Respondent’s disorders started during
his childhood and is linked on history psycho-developmental fixation
during childhood secondary to sibling rivalry, mortal punishment and
sexual abuse in his psych-developmental years.   His dishonesty and lack
of remorse are mere extensions of his misconduct in childhood experiences
of separation and emotional deprivations.  

25. In fine, Respondent’s psychological incapacity is but a product of

some genetic causes, faulty parenting, influence of the environment and
exposure to sexual abuse although all of its manifestation appears only
after the wedding.

Incurability

26. Since the personality disorders of the Respondent existed long before
he contracted marriage with Petitioner, there appears no chance for them to
recover by ordinary means from such incapacity. Dr. dela Cruz declared
that the Respondent’s disorder is of such a serious and deep-rooted
abnormality that no amount of psychological treatment and intervention
would control or cure the grave and continuous features of the
abnormality.

27. The callous and irresponsible ways of Respondent show that he does
not possess the proper outlook, disposition and temperament necessary for
marriage. Indeed, this ultimate recourse of nullity is the only way by which
petitioner can be delivered from the bondage of a union that only proved
to be a mockery and brought pain and dishonor to petitioner and their
child.

28. At this point, Petitioner brings to the mind of this Honorable Court
that in dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological
incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundations of families, but it
is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a
person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or
assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred
bond.

29. Let it be stressed that in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in

the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning. To indulge in
imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a
decent burial to a stillborn marriage.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that after hearing, judgment be rendered as follows:

a. Declaring the marriage between the parties as null and void ab initio
pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code;

b. Directing the Local Civil Registrar of Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila

to cancel and/or annotate from its entries in the Book of marriages,
the marriage of the parties;

c. Granting the sole custody of their minor son to the herein Petitioner;

d. Allowing the Petitioner to resume the use of her maiden surname

QUIRINO;

e. Declaring the property relations governing the parties as dissolved as

a consequence of the nullity of marriage.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, October 31, 2017.

LYCEUM LAW OFFICES

2 floor, 109 L.P. Leviste Street
nd

Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City

Tel. No. (+632) 893-9299
www.lyceumlaw.com

By:

        JINTANA G. YANTAKOSOL
Roll of Attorneys No. 62180
PTR No. 0055573-01/10/2014 Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. 0010424-04/28/16
 Email: jgyantakosol@lyceumlaw.com

VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, ISABELLE Q. SAN JUAN, of legal age, Filipino, married, with

residential address at No. 438 M.H. Del Pilar St., Maysilo, Malabon City,
after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:  

1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing petition and that all
the allegations contained therein are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge and based on existing and authentic documents.

3. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or

complaint involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals or different divisions thereof or any court, tribunal or
agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof; that in the event that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending, I hereby bind myself to
notify the Court within five (5) days from such notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31 day of st

October 2017 at Makati City.

ISABELLE Q. SAN JUAN

Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10 day of June 2014

th

affiant exhibiting her Unified Multi-Purpose ID CRN 006000888886 as

competent evidence of her identity.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2017.

COPY FURNISHED:

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City, 1229

Office of the City Prosecutor

Makati City
16th Floor, Makati City Hall (New Building)
J.P. Rizal, Brgy. Poblacion, Makati City