Republic of the 

Philippines
First Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch ________
Urdaneta, Pangasinan

MARRY ANN H. MAMAYSON-MAMARIL,

Petitioner,

-versus- Civil Case No. _________

for
JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE
FAMILY CODE
DONNEL ERIC M. MAMARIL,
Respondent.
x------------------x

PETITION

       Petitioner, MARRY ANN H. MAMAYSON-MAMARIL, by

and through the undersigned counsel respectfully submits
this Petition.

1. Petitioner is a Filipino citizen, of legal age and married to

the respondent and a resident of Nancaysan, Urdaneta
City, Pangansinan. For the purpose of this petition, she
may be served with notices and other pertinent processes
through counsel’s address at
2nd Floor SC Vinluan Bldg , Diego Silang Ave
Poblacion Norte, Caba, La Union 2502.

2. Respondent is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to the

petitioner and a resident of Purok 7, Flores, Umingan,
Pangasinan;

3. In this petition, the petitioner respectfully prays to this

Honorable Court that her marriage with the respondent
be declared void on the ground that either or both of the
parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with
their respective obligations as husband and wife based
on articles of the Family Code of the Philippines, to wit:

Art. 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 be like
wise void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after
its solemnization.

Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together,
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual
help and support. (109a)

Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of
the family…

4. Petitioner and respondent were married on June 25,

2002 unfortunately the couple had no child, copy of the
Marriage Certificate is attached as Annex “A”;

5. Right after the wedding, the couple lived with the

respondent’s family in Purok 7, Flores, Umingan,
Pangasinan;

6. Respondent did not initiate intimate acts during their

first night as husband and wife and respondent informed
her that he is not prepared to be a father yet because he
is still studying;

7. As days passed by, respondent insisted that he is not

willing to be a father because he cannot provide the
needs of the baby thus he avoid having carnal knowledge
with petitioner;

8. During the marriage, respondent was still supported in

his studies by his parents being an only son until one
day it turned out that he is not attending school and is
just busy with his friends and his travels to Baguio City
or Dagupan City;

9. When petitioner and respondent’s parent learned about

the liquor drinking sprees and even drugs sessions of
respondent, respondent insisted and spent his time
drinking liquors so he was always drunk and always
fighting with his mother;

10. Respondent is always ill tempered and angry due to petty

reasons. One time, he slapped petitioner because his food
was eaten by the cat while he was just watching
television and petitioner was busy washing their clothes.

PETITION Page 2 of 4
11. In 2004, petitioner’s mother in law perished, respondent
was depressed and became violent because he was
dependent to his mother.

12. Despite the fact that petitioner is a licensed teacher, she

worked as a governess to respondent’s cousin’s children
in the neighboring house to earn a little while respondent
would do nothing;

13. One day while petitioner was taking care of the children
in the neighboring house, respondent in drunk state
came and is knocking at the door but petitioner was not
able to open the door timely, without any second thought
respondent continuously kicked and boxed petitioner
until she was black and blue in front of the children
taken cared by her. They had an altercation which
resulted to more slaps and kicks from respondent. Not
only that, the children was also kicked and hit in the
process and due to her fear that the children will be
harmed by respondent she made a way that she could
run away together with them.

14. When petitioner had a chance to work abroad, she

resigned from her job and signed up for Qatar but was
not lucky enough she came home because her employers
were too harsh of her. Petitioner went to Qatar to work
purposely to be away from respondent’s grasp and
presence.

15. When petitioner visited their house in Umingan,

Pangasinan, she saw respondent with another woman
whom he was living together. The said third party would
usually join the couple in family outings when petitioner
was still with respondent.

16. Despite the pleas of their family to fix their marriage not
knowing the real situation because petitioner did not tell
her family about the attitude of respondent, petitioner
firmly decided that she cannot live with respondent
anymore.

17. The petitioner would like to continue her life without any
tie, void as in their case, with the respondent;

18. During their marriage, the spouses did not acquire any
property;

PETITION Page 3 of 4
 WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that after
trial, judgment be rendered, thus:

a. Declaring the marriage between petitioner and

respondent VOID ab initio under Article 36 of the
Family Code of the Philippines;

b. Ordering the Civil Registrar General to cancel the

corresponding marriage contract and its entry on file
relative to the petitioner and respondent.

All other relief, just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

Caba, La Union for Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, June 26,

2017.

                 

MHELANIE CARREON WILLIAM

Counsel for Petitioner
Roll of Attorney 64072; 04-27-15
PTR 1490143; 01-03-17
IBP Membership 1043157; 01-03-17
MCLE Compliance V-0001637; 12-19-2016
SC Vinluan Jr Bldg., Pob Norte
Caba, La Union 09332416352

PETITION Page 4 of 4