1. pondents mother also volunteered to pay for the house utilities.

2. Sometime in March 2003, Respondent was relieved of his position

at Santiago Corporation when it was dissolved. Respondent did

not seek employment elsewhere.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The couple moved back to Respondent's parents' house after

Petitioner lost her position at HSBC when the bank experienced a

bank run.

6. 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.
7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.