Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

Fourth Judicial Region
Branch _____
CALAMBA CITY

PRINCESS ANNE D. BUEN-CRUICKSHANK,

Petitioner.

CIVIL CASE NO. ________

- versus - FOR: “Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage”

RONALD CHRISTIAN ALFARO CRUICHSHANK,

Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

PETITION

COMES NOW PETITIONER, thru the undersigned counsel, unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:

1. Petitioner is a Filipino citizen, of legal age and residing at Hizon

Aprt., Carnation Street, Belarmino Subdivision, Crossing, Calamba City
(Laguna), while Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino, with post-
office address at L39 B5 Rambutan St., Sta. Maria Village Calapan City
Mindoro Oriental, where they may be served with summon and other
Court processes.

2. On April 19, 2012, Petitioner and Respondent got married at

JKL Family Cobe, Balite Calapan City Oriental, as shown by the Marriage
Contract, copy of which is hereto attached and made an integral part
hereof as Annex “A”.
 2

3. Out of their lawful wedlock, parties begot a child name Chanel

Hermione Cruickshank, born on December 17, 2013. Copy of her
Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex “B”;

4. At the time of the celebration of their marriage, petitioner did not

know that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations of marriage (Article 36 Family Code of
the Philippine as amended by Executive Order No. 227 dated July 17,
1987) as her appearance and behavior, was apparently capacitated to
contract marriage.

Marital History and Manifestation

of Psychological Incapacity

5. Petitioner and respondent met in their school when the petitioner

joined Calapan Brass Band. Respondent was also petitioner classmate in
some of their subjects. Petitioner and respondent became close to each
other and respondent asked the petitioner if he can court the petitioner.
During the courtship, petitioner was able to see the respondent attending
their classes drunk and even when they have to perform in the brass
band. Although petitioner knew how respondent was, petitioner said yes
to respondent courtship because respondent promised that he will stop
drinking when petitioner will be his girlfriend. However, just for several
weeks, respondent returned to his drinking and womanizing and also
caught him having a relationship with a gay person. Petitioner wanted to
break up with him but respondent promised that he won’t do it again;

6. One day, respondent was kicked out of their house and

respondent requested the petitioner great grandmother and petitioner
grandmother to let the respondent stay in their house for a while and
petitioner grandmothers allowed the respondent to but respondent stay
took longer than expected so, petitioner grandmother asked the
 3

petitioner to marry the respondent because their neighbors were already

talking about them so petitioner requested respondent to look for
another place to stay because petitioner could see that respondent
drinking was becoming worse; but instead of leaving, respondent asked
the petitioner to marry him because respondent did not have anyplace to
stay and respondent told the petitioner that the marriage will only be in
papers. Petitioner was also pressured to marry respondent so petitioner
cannot say no anymore;

7. Days before petitioner and respondent scheduled marriage,

petitioner caught the respondent again with a gay man. Petitioner tried
to ask her grandmothers to stop the marriage plan but they did not listen
to petitioner saying that it would be shameful if the marriage will not
push through and respondent again promised petitioner that he will stop
doing what respondent did. The wedding happened on April 19, 2012 but
after several weeks, petitioner caught the respondent again with another
woman. Petitioner family urged her to have a child thinking that
respondent was acting that way because they don’t have a child. So,
petitioner consulted an OB and later, petitioner got pregnant. Petitioner
was in her 8th month pregnancy when respondent again had another
relationship and because of stress in getting to the respondent caught
with the woman, petitioner gave birth to their child prematurely;

8. After giving birth to their child respondent suddenly disappeared

and petitioner cannot find the respondent and petitioner decided to
return to Laguna to start life all over again but respondent appeared one
day promising to change. With the baby in her mind, petitioner allowed
the respondent to be in petitioner life again, for the sake of their child but
later on, respondent returned to drinking again and when they fight,
respondent started to bang his head on the wall especially when
respondent’s drunk to make petitioner stop interrogating the respondent;
 4

9. Respondent also did not stay long in his job as respondent was
always terminated, respondent incurred a lot of loans/debts up to the
time that respondent has to hide from his creditors. Petitioner does not
know where respondent spent the money from respondent salary and
loans from different people. The worst was when respondent tried to cut
his wrist and with this, petitioner told the respondent to leave their
house;

10. Petitioner got information that respondent has found a new

woman in his life and they are living somewhere in Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
Respondent is not giving any support to their daughter because
respondent has no work and is dependent on respondent live-in partner.
Respondent has now a child with that woman but respondent is still
unemployed;

11. Petitioner life without the respondent is what petitioner now

wants. The hurt and trouble that respondent gave the petitioner,
respondent being a drunkard and womanizer had pushed the petitioner
to make the final decision and left petitioner strong to have her marriage
annulled; hence, this psychological exam to determine the capacity or
incapacity of either or both parties.

12. Respondent is suffering from grave lack of discretionary

judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligation to
be mutually given and accepted;

13. Petitioner tried to endure his suffering at the hands of

Respondent and up to the present experiencing mental anxiety, wounded
feelings;

14. That Petitioner sought the advice of her relatives and

unanimously called for the dissolution of their marriage as their marriage
was on the rock with no authentic cohabitation;
 5

15. Petitioner tried to endure her suffering at the hands of

Respondent and up to the present experiencing mental anxiety, wounded
feelings.

16. Petitioner underwent psychological treatment to meet the

requirements laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Republic
versus Court of appeals and Roridel Molina (268 SCRA 198), and the
respondent was invited thru letter send by petitioner’s counsel and
despite receipt of letter, he refused to under psychological examination
test. A copy of the Letter Invitation and Registry Receipt is hereto
attached as Annex “C” and “C-1”, respectively;

17. Petitioner during all these times since separation experienced

total neglect, loneliness, mental torture, and rejection as a result of
Respondent’s thoroughly incorrigible and consistent behavior of not
being able to comply with his essential marital obligations. The refusal of
the Respondent to perform his essential marital obligations had been
pervasive, grave, consistent and incurable throughout the cohabitation.
Because the petitioner cannot stand the seriously grave and negative
attitude of the respondent;

18. Clearly from the foregoing, the Respondent is psychologically

incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations of love, respect,
trust, support and cohabitation. This incapacity was present during the
marriage ceremony and is grave and incurable. Indeed no functional
marital life existed between the Petitioner and the Respondent;

19. The Psychological Report and Resume of Madam Visitacion

Revita hereto attached as Annex “D” and “E”, respectively, will
definitely show that Respondent is suffering of PERSONALITY
DISORDER, ANTI-SOCIAL TYPE with Dependency traits; hence,
included in the term psychological incapacity, a valid ground for
declaration of nullity of marriage;
 6

20. The Petitioner, is MENTALLY FIT and clearly in contact with

reality and she exhibits no psychopathologies while Respondent is found
suffering from a PERSONALITY DISORDER, ANTI-SOCIAL TYPE with
Narcissistic traits. There is a serious inability to conform to social norms.
This condition has been existing even before the marriage and in
incurable and manifested after the marriage. He is, therefore,
psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations of love,
respect and fidelity;

21. The antecedence, gravity and incurability or

permanence of the psychological incapacity of the respondent have
been clinically identified by a competent psychologist in the person of
Madam Visitacion Revita who found out that respondent’s psychological
incapacity was brought about by the fact that he is suffering from a
PERSONALITY DISORDER, ANTI-SOCIAL TYPE with Dependency
traits.

22. The psychological incapacity of the respondent is characterized

by judicial antecedence as it existed long before he entered into marriage.
Since it’s started early in life, it has been deeply engrained within his
system and becomes an integral part of his personality structure, thereby
rendering such to be permanent and irreversible as it remained incurable
by any psychopharmacological treatment;

23. That the psychological incapacity of the respondent exhibits

gravity, antecedence and incurability as shown in Visitacion Revita,
psychological report when Petitioner undergone several psychological
treatment;

24. The clinical Psychologist, Visitacion Revita, will testify

extensively and will prove to the Court her recommendation that the
annulment should be granted and or declare the marriage as null and
void on the ground mention-aboved;
 7

25. That the Petitioner and Respondent have been separated in

board and in bed resulting in inability of the Respondent to perform the
essential obligation of marriage;

26. The facts of this case render the reconciliation of the parties
highly improbable. During their marriage, Petitioner and Respondent
had no conjugal properties whether real of personal likewise have no
conjugal debts or other obligations to any person or entity.

27. That in compliance with the Supreme Court A. M. No. 02-11-10-

SC, Re: Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage, Petitioner
hereby submits the following documents:

Annex

“F” Certificate of Residency issued by the

Barangay Chairman of Barangay Uno, Calamba
City (Laguna);

“G” Sworn Statement of Residency of Petitioner with

House Location Sketch;

“H” Sworn Statement of Counsel stating he has

personally verified petitioner’s residency

“I” Machine Copies of Philippine Passport and

Employment ID of petitioner bearing the
photograph and address of the Petitioner;

“J” Utility Bill;

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed to this Honorable Court

after due notice and hearing a judgment be rendered in favor of the
Petitioner and against the Respondent.

a. Decreeing that the marriage between the parties is null

and void and of no force and effect whatsoever;
 8

b. Dissolving the marriage bonds between the parties;

Petitioner likewise prays for such other relief as this Honorable

Court may deem best and fit in the circumstances.

Pakil, Laguna for Calamba City.

October 23, 2019.

PABLO M. ESGUERRA
Counsel for the Petitioner
Pauline Bldg., 50 Tavera Street
Pakil, Laguna
IBP Roll No. 36979
PTR No. 6783534/01-03-2019
IBP No. 060695/01-04-2019
MCLE Compliance No. VI-014491
Tel No. (049) 557-0231
Cel. No. 0922-8700457
esguerra_lawoffice10@yahoo.com