Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH ____
CITY OF MANILA

Janice Alberto Arceo,


Petitioner,
-versus-

Rhoieland Mantomingcal Arceo,


Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Civil Case No. __________


For: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage under Art. 36
of Family Code

PETITION
COMES NOW petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and to
this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:
1. That petitioner Janice Alberto Arceo is of legal age, married,
Filipino and resident of 1473 G. Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila;
2. That respondent Rhoieland Arceo is likewise of legal age,
married, Filipino and presently residing at 1473 G. Masangkay St., Sta
Cruz, Manila;
3. That petitioner and respondent celebrated their marriage on
December 28, 2003 before the Parish Church of San Agustin, Manila,
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
Manila. 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 respondents
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 F. D.
Roque & Associates as Assistant Manager 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
cohabitation;

resorts

to

drug

and

alcohol

abuse

during

their

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
respondents instability started to manifest clearly to the petitioner. Their
relationship lasted sometime in 2003;
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
2

the part of the petitioner;


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 2003, 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, respondents 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 respondents 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 petitioners 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
3

WHEREFORE, after trial, it is respectfully prayed that this


Honorable Court rendered judgment:
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.
City of Manila, January 22, 2016.

CARINO, CAMBRI AND ASSOCIATE LAW


OFFICES
By:
______________
Atty. Edward Carino
Commission Serial No. 14344
Until December 31, 2016
Roll of Attorney 34555
IBP. No.2222/January 1, 2005/Manila
P.T.R. No. 2223/January 1, 2016
Roll No. 2256

VERIFICATION-CERTIFICATION
ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, Janice Alberto Arceo, of legal age, Filipino citizen, resident of
1473 G. Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila, after having been sworn to in
accordance with law, depose and say:
1. That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2. That I caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition;
3. That all the allegations therein are true and correct of my own
knowledge and based on authentic records;
4. That I hereby certify under oath that I have not heretofore
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency,
and that to the best of my knowledge, there is no other action or
proceeding, which is pending before this Honorable Court, Court of
Appeals, Supreme Court or any other tribunal or agency involving the
same parties and the same issues, and that if I learn hereafter that
5

there are other proceedings pending before this Honorable Court, or any
other tribunal or agency, I hereby undertake to report that fact within
five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
Manila, Philippines, January 22, 2016.

_____________
Janice Alberto Arceo
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22 day of January,
2016 at Manila. Affiant exhibited to me her Filipino Passport No. 12532
issued at Manila.
Atty. Edward Carino
Commission Serial No. 14344
Until December 31, 2016
Roll of Attorney 34555
IBP. No.2222/January 1, 2005/Manila
P.T.R. No. 2223/January 1, 2016
Roll No. 2256
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2016.