REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES

FIRSTJUDICIALREGION
REGIONALTRIALCOURTOFBATACCITY
BRANCH______,BATACCITY

MICHAEL JUSTIN BALDUGO, Civil Case No.: __________

Petitioner, For: Collection of Sum of
Money and Damages

- versus -

PHILIP VICTOR GARVIDA,

MHYKO MENDOZA,
MICHAELLA TUMANENG
Respondent.

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

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF THE PETITIONER

The Petitioner, represented by the undersigned counsel as his

attorney-in-law, respectfully submits to this Honorable Court this Pre-Trial

Brief, to wit:

I.

POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF

DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The Petitioner is not willing to consider any amicable settlement or

undergo alternative modes of dispute resolution with respect to the primary

prayer of this petition. However, the Petitioner is open to the possibility of

amicable settlement in relation to the collection of interest, damages,

litigation fess and other expenses incurred.

II.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The Petitioner proposes the following stipulation of facts:

1. Petitioner met Respondent sometime in May 2000 at Power Plant

Mall, Makati, where she worked part-time as a Sales Personnel at

Fully Booked. Respondent was one of the customers of said

bookstore whom she served and who took an immediate

attraction to her.
2. Respondent relentlessly wooed Petitioner for six (6) months by

showering her with flowers and gifts, visiting her frequently at

the bookstore and in her school, Assumption Makati, and

bringing her home.

3. During the courtship, Petitioner often asked Respondent where

he worked and what his job was, but Respondent always replied

that he was still looking for a suitable job that his mother would

approve of.
4. Petitioner also asked Respondent where he gets his money

whenever they went out on dates since the latter was

unemployed while he was courting Petitioner. Respondent replied

that his parents always gave him an allowance for gimmicks,

dates, and out-of-town trips.

5. During their dates, Petitioner observed that Respondents mother

would call him every two hours and ask him where he was.

Petitioner also observed that every time she went out on a date

with the Respondent, he always bought his mother a bouquet of

flowers before heading home.

6. Petitioner eventually committed to a relationship with

Respondent after about six (6) months of courtship when

Respondent told her that he would stop courting her if she would

not commit to a relationship with him.

7. About a month into the relationship, Petitioner attempted to

break up with Respondent because she found out that the

Respondent lied to her about looking for a job. Petitioner

discovered that Respondent, since graduating from college,

never sought employment.

8. Respondent later found employment in Villa Socorro Farm, a

company owned by his family where his mother was the Chief

Executive Officer, as an Sales Assistant.

9. Later, Respondent pleaded with the Petitioner to prove her love

to him by asking her to have pre-marital sex with him and when

she refused, Respondent attempted to commit suicide.

10. Fearing that Respondent would again attempt suicide,

Petitioner engaged in pre-marital sex with him, resulting in her

feelings of guilt and remorse.

11. Soon after this, Respondent proposed marriage to

Petitioner because he sensed the feelings of constant guilt and

remorse exhibited by Petitioner.

12. Petitioner and Respondent were married to each other at

the Manila Cathedral on 10 January 2002 before a certain Rev.

dela Cruz, as evidenced by their Certificate of Marriage dated 10

January 2002. The wedding ceremony and reception at the

Manila Hotel was attended by both parties' friends and family.

13. After the marriage ceremony, the spouses returned to their

respective parents' homes and lived separately since they had

not yet established a conjugal home.

14. Respondent visited Petitioner in her house in North Forbes

Park daily. However, Respondents mother would always call him

up and ask him to go home. Respondents mother would ask

their family driver to drive her to North Forbes Park to pick up

her son in the wee hours of the morning.

15. In 2002, as a result of Respondent's request, Petitioner

moved in to the house of Respondents' parents believing it would

only be temporary until the couple has enough money of their

own to rent or purchase their own residence.

16. In the same year, the couple established an Internet caf

business along Makati Avenue, Makati which was mostly funded

by Respondents parents with the exception of the funds invested

by the Petitioner.
17. The Internet caf business closed down about after a year

due to the fact that it was not earning enough profit with

Petitioner promising the Respondents' parents that they would

reimburse them for the capital they gave to start the business.

Respondents' mother on the other hand told her reimbursement

was not necessary because she never expected the same.

18. Sometime in 2002, since the couples savings were still

insufficient to purchase a house and lot, Petitioner applied for

and was employed as a Management Trainee at Hong Kong

Shanghai Bank (HSBC).

19. While working at HSBC, there were times that Petitioner

would come home late from work only to discover that

Respondent was out of the house or with his friends.

20. Also, there were a few occasions when Respondent was

unable to fetch Petitioner from HSBC as a result of the

prohibition of the formers mother. In addition to this, there were

several times where Respondent would fetch Petitioner from the

office with his mother.

21. In February 2003, Petitioner and Respondent were finally

able to move out of Respondents' parents home. They moved to

a house purchased by Respondents' mother on No. 32 Maya St.,

which was a block away from Respondents' parents home.

22. Respondents mother visited them every day, brought

them food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Respondents mother

also volunteered to pay for the house utilities.

23. Sometime in March 2003, Respondent was relieved of his

position at Santiago Corporation when it was dissolved.

Respondent did not seek employment elsewhere.

24. Respondents mother began giving her son allowances to

defray his personal and familial expenses. Respondents mother

asked Petitioner what expenses were not being covered by her

salary and even volunteered to subsidize their other household

expenses.
25. During this period of unemployment, Respondent

consistently tried to convince Petitioner to move back into the

home of Respondents parents, because he stayed there anyway

almost the entire day since he had no work.

26. The couple moved back to Respondent's parents' house

after Petitioner lost her position at HSBC when the bank

experienced a bank run.

27. When the couple returned to the home of Respondents

parents, Respondent constantly reminded the Petitioner that

they can live off his parents who can afford to support them

anyway and that Petitioner should just abandon the idea of

moving into their own family home.

28. In a last ditch effort to save her marriage, the Petitioner

convinced the Respondent to undergo marriage counseling

sometime during the month of November 2003.

29. Petitioner brought him to Dr. Jimmy Tan, a psychologist,

who not only counseled the couple until July of 2004 but also
 made a psychological evaluation and assessment of the

Respondent at the request of the Petitioner and with the

knowledge and consent of the former that his wife would receive

a copy of the doctors findings.

30. The psychological evaluation and assessment issued by Dr.

Tan on 21 June 2004, revealed that the Respondent is suffering

from a dependent personality disorder which is serious, incurable

and existing prior to the union between the two, rendering him

incapable of performing the essential marital obligations, the

features of which are (1) difficulty making everyday decisions

without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from

others, especially Respondents mother, (2) needs others to

assume responsibility for the major areas of his life (3) has

difficulty initiating work or doing things on his or her own, (4)

feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of

exaggerated fears of being unable to care for himself or herself,

(5) is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take

care of himself or herself, and (6) an overwhelming lack of

interest to take responsibility for his actions and his life.

31. As Petitioner could no longer bear the emotional and

psychological stress brought about by Respondents mentality

and behavior, she left the home of her parents-in-law to live on

her own sometime in September 2004.

 32. As found even by the National Appellate Matrimonial

Tribunal of the Catholic Church in a decision they released

concerning the so-called union between the Petitioner and the

Respondent on 9 March 2006 penned by a Fr. Rodolfo Dacanay,

S.J., the Respondent manifested a simple but deep-seated

aversion to performing his marital obligations as he failed to

provide the Petitioner with the companionship, respect, mutual

help, support, and care required by law as he decided to provide

the same to his mother. The said decision goes on to state that

the inability of the Respondent to discharge the essential

obligations of marriage is grave and incurable, as the acts

constituting the same are habitual, persistent, unchanging and of

enduring nature.

III.

ISSUES TO BE TRIED AND RESOLVED

The Petitioner proposes the following issues to be tried and resolved by

this Honorable Court:

1. Whether or not the Respondent has failed to comply with the

essential marital obligations stated in Article 68 of the Family

Code;
2. If the Respondent has failed to comply with the essential marital

obligations stated in Article 68 of the Family Code, whether or

 not such failure was due to psychological incapacity which is

grave, serious and incurable and existing at the time of the

marriage, though only manifesting itself during the marriage.

IV.

DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED
The Petitioner will present the following documents

1. Marriage Certificate between Eunice Cruz-Santiago and

Michael Santiago made on 10 January 2002.

2. Certificate of Employment of Michael Santiago from

Santiago Corporation issued on 4 September 2001.

3. Certificate of Employment of Eunice-Cruz Santiago from

HSBC issued in 2002.

4. Deed of Sale over No. 32 Maya St., Corinthian Gardens, Quezon

City purchased by Michael Santiago's mother on 8 January 2003.

5. Psychological Evaluation and Assessment of Michael

Santiago made by Dr. Jimmy Tan on 21 June 2004.

6. Decision of National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal

penned by Fr. Rodolfo Dacanay, S.J. on 9 March 2006.

7. Other documents as may be determined to be relevant to the

case during the course of trial.

 V.

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED
The Petitioner will present the following witnesses:

1. Eunice Cruz-Santiago will testify as to truthfulness of her

allegations in the petition, particularly the breakdown of her

union with Michael Santiago because of the latter's psychological

incapacity.
2. Dr. Jimmy Tan will testify as to the truthfulness of his

Psychological Evaluation and Assessment of Michael Santiago

made on 21 June 2004. He will also testify as to how serious

Michael Santiago's psychological condition is, what he believes is

the root cause of such condition and how it has manifested itself

in the union between Michael Santiago and Eunice Cruz-

Santiago.

3. Corazon Ayala-Santiago, mother of Respondent, will testify as

to the methods, schemes, and ways in which she helped her son

before and during the marriage. She will also testify as to the

nature of her relationship with her son and how the latter was
 brought up in order to show the root cause of Respondents

psychological condition.

4. Other witnesses as may be determined to be relevant to the case

during the course of trial.

VI.

AVAILABLE DATES FOR TRIAL

The Petitioner respectfully requests that the trial dates be agreed upon

in open court at such dates and time convenient to the parties and the

calendar of this Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto this

Honorable Court that the foregoing Pre-Trial Brief be duly noted.

Makati City, 12 November 2012.

(SGD.) ALISON KAW

Counsel for Petitioner
Address: #11 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City
Contact Nos.: (054) 887-1476; 0917-449-3285
Roll No. 97871
PTR No. 024542; 1/10/09; Makati City
IBP No. 007308; 12/20/09; Makati Chapter

(SGD.) MATTHEW ONG

Counsel for Petitioner
Address: #23 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City
Contact Nos.: (054) 887-1234; 0917-468-5475
Roll No. 97963
PTR No. 0257442; 3/11/08; Makati City
IBP No. 478521; 2/2/09; Makati Chapter
 (SGD.) SERGIO PINLAC
Counsel for Petitioner
Address: #8 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City
Contact Nos.: (054) 897-3256; 0918-147-6985
Roll No. 85213
PTR No. 0285242; 5/4/08; Makati City
IBP No. 478521; 5/2/09; Makati Chapter

(SGD.) MARTIN UY
Counsel for Petitioner
Address: #35 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City
Contact Nos.: (054) 887-6978; 0917-485-5354
Roll No. 97413
PTR No. 0258712; 8/11/08; Makati City
IBP No. 198621; 6/8/09; Makati Chapter

(SGD.) DIANNA WILWAYCO

Counsel for Petitioner
Address: #16 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati City
Contact Nos.: (054) 897-1785; 0916-369-8523
Roll No. 32184
PTR No. 0951242; 10/8/08; Makati City
IBP No. 478521; 11/7/09; Makati Chapter

Copy furnished:
SAMSON MANGCO FERNANDO CRUZ GARCIA & ASSOCIATES
Counsel for Respondent
Address: 10/F Commerce Centre, Valero St., Salcedo Village, Makati
Contact Nos.: (081) 874-1478 to 90

EXPLANATION

Service of this petition is by registered mail instead of personal service

because of lack of messengerial aide to make personal service.

(SGD.) ALISON KAW

(SGD.) MATTHEW ONG

(SGD.) SERGIO PINLAC

 (SGD.) MARTIN UY

(SGD.) DIANNA WILWAYCO

Counsels for Petitioner

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Rodel Ardales, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and
say:

That I am the messenger of Attys. Kaw, Ong, Pinlac, Uy and Wilwayco,

counsels for petitioner in the case entitled Cruz-Santiago v. Santiago, Civil
Case No. 168168, and as such messenger I served upon the counsels of the
adverse party, the petition filed in said case:

By depositing the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly

addressed to the counsels at their office, with postage fully prepaid, and with
instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days
if undelivered, this 12th day of November 2012, as shown by Registry No.
12345 dated 12 November 2012 of the post office of Makati City.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 12th day of

November 2012 at Makati City.

(SGD.) RODEL ARDALES

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 12th day of November 2012

at Makati City, affiant exhibiting to me her Driver's License No. 12345852515
which will expire on April 26, 2014.

(SGD.) MICHAEL DELA CRUZ

Notary Public
Makati City

Doc. No. _______;

Page No. _______;
Book No. _______;
Series of 2012.