1 of 8

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 31 Iloilo City

Cheska G. Montero,
Petitioner,
CIVIL CASE NO. 78897
-versus

FOR: DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

Johnny M. Montero,
Respondent,
x-------------------------------------------x

PETITION

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. Petitioner, by counsel, to this Honorable

Court, respectfully states:

1. Petitioner, CHESKA G. MONTERO, is of legal age,

Filipino citizen and a resident of 35 Forbes Homes,
Mandurriao, Iloilo City, where he may be served with
summons and other court processes;

2. The Respondent JOHNNY M. MONTERO, is likewise of

legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of #31 R. Mapa
Street, Mandurriao, Iloilo City, where she may be served
with summons and other court processes;

3. Petitioner CHESKA G. MONTERO and Respondent

JOHNNY M. MONTERO (referred as herein as Parties)
entered into a contract of marriage on October 30, 1998
at the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Iloilo City,
solemnized by Hon. Julio Vargas. A copy of their marriage
certificate is hereto attached as Annex A;

4. The parties begot three children. Copies of their

children’s certificates of Live Birth is hereto attached as
Annexes B, C, and D;
 2 of 8

5. Petitioner and Respondent met sometime in January

1997 at the National Capital Region Training Center,
Camp Bagong Diwa Bicutan, Taguig City, where they were
both police trainees. In the evening when they first met,
Petitioner and Respondent together with their friends
went out for a karaoke;

6. The Petitioner and Respondent became romantically

involved immediately after the Karaoke night through the
matchmaking efforts of their companions. This situation
went on for several occasions;

7. Not long after, their sexual encounters resulted to the

respondent getting the petitioner pregnant;

8. When their superior came to know that herein

Petitioner got pregnant, they pressured the Petitioner to
either marry Respondent or be discharged from service.
Likewise, the relatives of the defendant put pressure on
him by warning him not to put their family in disgrace
and humiliation;

9. Even before their marriage, the Petitioner had observed

that the Respondent displayed eccentricity and
irresponsibility to the extent that she oftentimes would
not care for his feelings. However, in the hope that the
Respondent would change once they get married,
Petitioner gave in to the pressure of marrying the
Respondent despite not knowing her too well;

10. At the time of the celebration of their marriage,

Respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity
and not truly cognitive of her marital obligations. The
facts and circumstances being that:

a. During their relationship before the marriage,

Sheila was a party girl. After quitting on becoming
a police officer, she often went out with friends to
drink until the wee hours of the nights in various
bars in Iloilo City. She would often go out together
with her friends to meet new guys;

b. Sheila showed signs of "immaturity and

irresponsibility" as a wife and a mother. She
 3 of 8

preferred to spend more time with her peers on

whom she squandered her money. Petitioner
thought that after they got married, Sheila will
change, and become responsible in handling a
married life. But instead, during their marriage,
Sheila continued to have hard drinks with male
companions on the beach or in the compound of
Col. Cristalo, Sheila’s father, if the former is not
around. She drinks with male companions at least
three times a week. Their children were only
attended to and taken care of by the yayas;

c. Respondent is also an incorrigible liar. Many

times during their marriage, the Respondent lied to
the Petitioner regularly almost about everything.
Sometime in 2000, the Respondent lied about
getting a job as an insurance sales agent.
Numerous times, the Respondent told the Petitioner
that she was going to work, while in fact, she just
went to her parents’ house to drink and play
mahjong with her friends. When the Petitioner
confronted her about the matter, Sheila threw a fit
and told him that she wanted to do anything she
likes with her time just like before they got married;

d. Respondent is also too dependent on her father

that all her decisions in life should be in conformity
with those of her father’s. Sheila does not have the
ability to decide on her own regarding most of her
decisions in life. Apparently, her decision to marry
petitioner was also largely because her father
persuaded her to. Moreover, every time there was
something that the couple had to decide on, she
had to consult with her father. This almost always
led to violent arguments between them;

e. Furthermore, although the Petitioner and the

Respondent have their own house, the latter would
oftentimes leave their house to stay at her parents’
house for several days because, according to her,
she couldn’t sleep peacefully in their house and
that she oftentimes felt suffocated there. She often
left the children in the care of their yayas;
 4 of 8

f. During the time they were still living together,

Petitioner and Respondent appeared to be strangers
forced to be with each other. Instead of becoming a
home, their house felt like a prison. They almost
never had a meal as a couple. Respondent never
cooked for the Petitioner nor for their children;

g. When the parents of Sheila immigrated to the

United States, she wanted to go with them, so she
always expressed her desire to leave for the United
States. She even expressed her willingness to leave
her own family to be able to go the United States.
This also led to frequent quarrels between them.
Finally, she kept her word and left for the United
States with their three children, abandoning the
petitioner. They have not been living together for
almost eight (8) years since the Respondent
unceremoniously abandoned their conjugal home
sometime in 2004;

11. Petitioner tried everything possible to persuade

respondent to change for the better specially her violent
personality so that they could build their family, live
together harmoniously as husband and wife, fulfill their
marital vows and discharge their reciprocal obligation to
consummate the essential duties of their union in order to
establish a happy home.

12. However, all such pleas by Petitioner were unheeded

as respondent was not willing to be a wife to him and a
mother to their children. Respondent was not ready to
take the responsibilities and was not prepared to live in a
harmonious and peaceful union with Petitioner;

13. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist, Dr. Juana

Change, who conducted a psychological evaluation on the
ability of respondent to cope with the essential obligations
of marriage. After the evaluation, respondent was found to
be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential
marital obligations borne from her immaturity, which
affected her sense of rational judgment and responsibility;

14. As found out by clinical Psychologist, Respondent’s

behavioral patterns were affected during his early
 5 of 8

developmental years where she was raised and exposed in

an unfavorable environment;

15. The psychiatric illness of the defendant is serious and

incurable because it is deeply ingrained in her personality
and that such illness originated from parental over
indulgence or over protection especially coming from the
parent of the opposite sex her father. The fact that her
mother was assigned to work abroad provided the fertile
environment for the illness to develop. The absence of the
mother during her developmental years deprived her of
the needed guidance on how to be a good wife. This was
apparent in her married life;

16. These traits reveal her psychological incapacity under

Art. 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines and is more
appropriately labelled as Histrionic Personality Disorder
coupled with Dependent Personality Disorder associated
with severe inadequacy that renders her psychologically
incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of
a wife ;

17. The psychological make-up of petitioner and

respondent is explained in greater detail in the Clinical
Assessment Report (Report) dated 28 December 2013, a
copy of which is attached as ANNEX E;

18. That the psychological incapacity on the part of the

defendant was already existing and manifest even before
the celebration of the marriage, but Petitioner thought it
will disappear during the marriage; however, it subsisted
and got even worse;

19. That said psychological defect or illness is grave,

serious and incurable;

20. 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
 6 of 8

effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility by

being psychologically immature and failing to perform her
responsibilities as a wife;

21. That the parties did not acquire any property and
there are no known creditors who will be prejudiced by
the declaration of nullity of their marriage should the
Honorable court grants this petition, hereto attached as
Certificate of Non-Property, Annex F.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that judgment be

rendered declaring the nullity of the marriage of Petitioner with the
Respondent pursuant to Article 36, and the annulment of the same
marriage based on Article 45 (5) of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Other reliefs and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.

July 3, 2021 Iloilo City, Philippines

By:

SHOTARO IMWARAS
IBP: 2342114, 2/05/17, Iloilo City
PTR No. 23434, 1/16/16;
Roll No. 34534, 4/8/11;
Manila MCLE Compliance No. IV-45546, 1/7/21;

GERALDINO AGUSTIN
IBP: 99434543, 2/17/16, Manila
PTR No. 23434, 1/16/16;
Roll No. 34534, 4/8/11;
Manila MCLE Compliance No. IV-45546, 1/7/21;

Copy Furnished:

Office of the City Prosecutor through personal service

Justice Hall, Iloilo City

Office of the Solicitor General through personal service

134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village, Makati City, Metro Manila
 7 of 8

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, CHESKA G. MONTERO, of legal age, married, Filipino, and a

resident of 45 Lumina Homes, Mandurriao, Iloilo City,, Iloilo City,
after being duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state:

1. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I

have caused the preparation of the same petition;
2. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in
the same petition of my own personal knowledge;
3. That I have read all the contents thereof;
4. That the allegations constrained therein are true
and correct of my personal knowledge
5. That I have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues or matter in any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
our knowledge, no such action or processing is pending
therein,
6. That if I should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or proceeding has been filed before the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency, I undertake to report such within
five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein the original
pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein has
been filed

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10 TH

day of July 2021 in the City of Iloilo.

CHESKA G. MONTERO
Affiant
TIN No. 301-358-663

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 10th day of July

2021, at Iloilo City, Philippines, affiant who is personally known to
me, and to me known, to be the same person, exhibited his TIN No.
301-358-663 as his competent evidence of identity.
 8 of 8

Doc. No. ___;

Page No. ___;
Book No.___;
Series of 2021.

ATTY. MARIE FRANCINE M. ALBAÑA

NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE CITY OF ILOILO
NOT. COMM. REG. NO. 333 until DECEMBER 31, 2025
IBP. No. 766155, 1//24/2021 - Iloilo (Lifetime member)
PTR No. 564894, 1/25/2021 - Iloilo
Roll of Attorneys No. 789444