Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


11th Judicial Region
BRANCH 05, DAVAO CITY

Nadine Rain
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. ________


For: Annulment of Marraige
James Rain
Defendant

x------------------------------------------------x

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and to this


Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

PARTIES

1. That petitioner Nadine Rain, is of legal age, married, Filipino and


resident of 1473 G. Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila;

2. That respondent James Rain is likewise of legal age, married,


Filipino and presently residing at 1473 G. Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila;

CAUSES OF ACTION

3. That petitioner and respondent celebrated their marriage on


December 28, 2003 before the Parish Church of San Agustin, Matina, Davao
City, certified true copy of their Marriage Certificate is attached and made
integral part hereof as Annex “A”;

4. That petitioner and respondent have two child. They have no


written agreement executed before the marriage to govern their property
relations nor have any community property acquired during their marriage.
They have no debts;

5. That petitioner met the respondent sometime in 1998 in City of


Davao. Their romance culminated in a marriage before the priest of San
Agustin church;

1
6. That in a short span of time they had been together, this is the time
which the petitioner describes as a period where the respondent’s instability,
psychological or otherwise, showed up;

7. That other instances, wherein such instability could be reasonably


inferred are as follows:

a. After their marriage, the respondent gave up his job at San


Miguel Foods Corporation without justifiable reason;

b. That petitioner tried to explain to him that it was his


responsibility to support her but respondent would ignore and shout at her,
making the petitioner the breadwinner of the family;

c. That the respondent is a compulsive gambler;

d. He is a womanizer;

e. He resorts to drug and alcohol abuse during their cohabitation;

f. That the respondent does not want to have a child with the
petitioner because according to him it will just cause burden for him;

g. That parties would fight even for the smallest things through
not due to the fault of the petitioner, and frequently, the respondent would
always apologize to the petitioner, but later on, he will repeat his
quarrelsome and troublesome ways;

h. He prefers to hang out with friends and with her flings instead of
being with petitioner;

8. That during their honeymoon period, things were running smoothly


between them, but not on the succeeding week, when the respondent’s
instability started to manifest clearly to the petitioner. Their relationship
lasted sometime in 2018;

9. That some other manifestations of the psychological and emotional


disturbances on the part of the respondent can be cited as follows:

a. That there were many times when the respondent never even
kissed the petitioner. Respondent would not even look at her whenever they
spoke with each other. She was always the one, who holds or hugs him so
that they may become closer to each other but every time she tries to be
closer to him, he simply had to always turn his back to her. This is causing
so much unbearable emotional and psychological pain on the part of the
petitioner;

2
b. That petitioner told the respondent that they should discuss
what went wrong between them and hopefully they could work it out again.
The petitioner verbalized all of the things she had noticed and felt, knowing
that everything works out when there is an open communication. She told
him about the lack of passion, respect and romance in their relationship. The
respondent just ignored her pleas;

c. That respondent began hurting the petitioner physically by


throwing things on her and shoving her around;

d. That respondent did not stop gambling and using alcohol and
drugs;

e. The respondent abandoned the petitioner and left to be with


another woman. Since May 2018, the respondent did not return nor tried to
communicate with the petitioner. The petitioner on several instances, tried
to reach the respondent through his relatives and friends but to no avail.

10. That the petitioner already gave up on the respondent after trying to
give all her efforts just to save her marriage to a man who, as shown in the
foregoing, is not cognitive to and psychologically incapable of performing,
his basic marital covenants to herein petitioner;

11. That further, respondent’s psychological incapacity from all


indications appears to have been manifesting at the time of the celebration of
marriage. Although said manifestations were not then perceived, the root
cause shall be proved to such an extent that respondent could not have
known the obligations he was to fulfill or knowing them could not have
validly performed them. It is of such incapacity that respondent was unable
to assume his marital obligations;

12. That the respondent’s incapacity to fulfill his essential marital


obligations appear to be grave, incurable and deeply ingrained, thus;
warranting the issuance of the Decree of Nullity of petitioner’s marriage
with the respondent;

13. That finally, the petitioner has therefore no other recourse but to seek
judicial relief. The prospects or possibility of respondent to reform and
assume his essential marital obligations is a remote possibility, if not a
hopeless expectancy.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, after trial, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable


Court rendered judgment:

3
1. Declaring the marriage entered into by the parties as NULL and
VOID on the ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent;

2. Ordering the Local Civil Registrar and the National Statistics


Office to cancel in their respective Books of Marriages, the marriage between
the petitioner and the respondent.

Petitioner prays for such other relief she may be entitled to in the
premises.

Davao City; February 14, 2020.

Atty. Jonah Margarette F. Presto


Counsel for the Plaintiff
Presto and Aligato Law Firm
Avocado Building, JP Laurel, Davao City
prestojonahmargarette@gmail.com
Roll No. 64564 issue on 1/3/2017 at Davao City
IBP No. 067990 issued on 5/3/2017 at Davao City
PTR No. 098765 issued on 6/3/2017 at Davao City
MCLE Compliance XI-0013922

4
VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM
SHOPPING

I, Nadine Rain, of legal age, do hereby state that: I caused this


Complaint to be prepared; I have read its contents and affirm that they are
true and correct to the best of my own personal knowledge and authentic
records. I also certify under oath that I have not previously filed any action
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency;
that to the best of my knowledge, no such action is pending in any of them;
and if I should learn of the filing of such action, I shall report it to the court
within five (5) from notice.

Davao City, February 14, 2020


Nadine Rain
Affiant

SIGNED AND SWORN before me this 14 th day of February, 2020 at


Davao city after exhibited to me his Passport P83646, issued on January 12,
2019, issued by Department of Foreign Affairs Davao City, personally
known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument,
and he acknowledged to me that the same is his free act and deed/

IN WITNESS WHEREFORE, I have hereunto set my hand and


affixed my notarial seal, the day, and place above written.

Doc no.
Page no.
Book no.
Series of:

5
6