Sie sind auf Seite 1von 29

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Davao del Sur
Digos City
RTC Branch 19

ANGELINA JOLIE-PITT
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. ___________


For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

BRAD PITT
Respondent.
X-------------------------X

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto this


Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges that:

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of Cor. Malvar and
Gen. Lim St., Poblacion, Kiblawan, Davao del Sur while respondent is
likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of Way to Tiguman
St., Tres de Mayo, Digos City, where he may be served with summons,
orders and other legal processes of this Honorable Court;

2. Petitioner and respondent are wife and husband, having been legally
married on July 24, 2008 at Manila Cathedral, in Intramuros, Manila City
after a trip to the Manila, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto
attached as Annex A;

3. Three children were born in wedlock, Chelsea J. Pitt., aged 8 years old,
Beatrice J. Pitt, 6 years old and William J. Pitt, 4 years old a copy of their
Certificates of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annexes B, C and D;

4. In retrospect petitioner and respondent were college sweethearts, growing


up in the same province of Davao del Sur. Petitioner was at the time a law
student of Cor Jesu College while respondent was working as a carpenter
of the Digos City Church;

5. Husband and wife met during a mass where the two immediately fell in
love;

6. The two were then inseparable as they spent their company happily in each
others arms but fissures were already present at this stage of their
relationship which foreshadowed their relationships end;

7. Prior to their marriage, Petitioner was informed through her friends that
her husband was a philanderer, irresponsible in work and associated with
men of disreputable character;
8. While Petitioner was still a law student, Brad would show utter disregard
for her future wifes welfare when he many times he would leave her alone
and vulnerable while waiting for a vehicle in the late hours of the night;

9. Despite the many warning signs that her husband was not capable of living
a domestic life, she continued with her relationship and decided to get
married to the man he loved;

10. The two decided to get married on 2008 just before she took the Bar
Examinations where she subsequently passed as a lawyer;

11. After one year their marriage gave birth to their first daughter Chelsie and
two years later to Beatrice;

12. During their marriage, Respondent was an absentee husband and negligent
father to their children who despite acquiring a well-paying job as the
Sheriff of Regional Trial Court 18, could not provide for their childrens
allowance, pay for the houses mortgage or even provide food to the table;

13. While Petitioner was busy at her law firm and building businesses in
Manila and Davao City, Respondent would veer away from the
responsibilities for their household: he failed to provide support to their
children, always avoided housework and would have drinking bouts that
lasted until 2AM;

14. This sad state of affairs Respondent tolerated out of her love of her husband
and she continued to pour her frustrations into her work;

15. Rumors then circulated that her husband was having secret affairs with
dozens of women and was having a long-term affair with a married
woman;

16. Petitioner discovered that in 2012, the Respondent had fathered an


illegitimate daughter with her mistress while there marriage was still
subsisting to a woman nicknamed Charlotte;

17. The scandalous discovery was revealed to respondent from her friends after
the two illicit lovers were playing with their lovechild in Rizal Park, Digos
City;

18. The couple had a heated exchange afterwards that night where Brad
revealed that since her wife was too busy as a lawyer and building an
Italian Restaurant in Davao, she no longer had any time for their
relationship;

19. Angelina would then retort that as the husband he should be working and
taking care of the children rather than be bruised by her elevated social
status and income;

20. After many years, her husbands treatment toward her deteriorated as his
drunkenness got worse and the two drifted apart more and more;
21. Petitioner discovered in 2015 that her husband fathered another second
daughter with her mistress;

22. Feeling spited and disregarded, petitioner decided with finality to end her
relationship with her husband as the second child was no longer just an
accident but was intentional;

23. To date, they have gone separate ways and the wife is now happily living
in Kiblawan with a new found boyfriend and there is no hope for
reconciliation.

24. Petitioner, convinced of the futility of her efforts, decided that she deserves
to start life anew with feelings of hope for a brighter future since there is
obviously no hope that respondent can cope up with her obligations as
husband;

25. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a psychological


evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope up with the essential
obligations of marriage. After evaluation, respondent was found to be
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations
of marriage borne from his lack of maturity, which affected her sense of
rational judgment and responsibility. These traits reveal his psychological
incapacity under Art. 36 of the New Family Code of the Philippines and is
more appropriately labeled Anti-Social and Narcissistic personality
disorder ;

26. Petitioner is filing this petition to declare her marriage a nullity.


Respondent showed no concern for his obligation towards his family in
violation of Art. 68 of the New Family Code which provides that husband
and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity and render mutual help and support. Petitioner is also filing this
case under Art. 36 of the same Code as the respondent manifested apparent
personality disorder and psychological dysfunction, i.e. his lack of effective
sense of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise peculiar to infants,
by being psychologically immature and failing to perform her
responsibilities as husband;

27. Said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable and
existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its existence;

28. Petitioner and respondent have acquired a mansion in Forbes Park, two
houses in Kiblawan and Digos City, Php 25 million in the bank and an
Italian Restaurant in Davao City while their marriage subsisted.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the


marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be declared a nullity. It is
likewise prayed that if and when parties are able to enter into an extrajudicial
settlement as to custody and joint parenting, the same be adopted by this Court
and in the absence thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and
obligations as parents be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. We pray for
such other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises.

Digos City. August 20, 2017

Atty. ARDEEN ROY C. DIAMANTE


Counsel for Petitioner
R&R Nerosa Park View Bldg.,
Rizal Avenue, Digos City
Roll No. 33476
IBP No. 764814
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/09/
MCLE Compliance II 0009328

VERIFICATION

I, ANGELINA JOLIE, of legal age, under oath, states:


01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;

02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of
my own personal knowledge;

03. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum


shopping, I hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action
or proceeding involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, or
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; b) to the best of my
knowledge, no such action or proceedings is pending in the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; c) If I should
learned that similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before
such tribunals or bodies, I shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court of agency where the original pleading and sworn
certification have been filed.

ANGELINA JOLIE
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 22nd day of August 2017


affiant exhibited to me his Passport dated 2015 issued in General Santos
City.

Doc. No. ________


Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2017.
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
San Juan City
Branch ______

BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. ___________


For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto this


Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

01. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;

02.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;

03.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;

04.In retrospect petitioner and respondent were childhood friends, growing


up in the same neighborhood in Project 8 and were even schoolmates at
St. Patrick School in high school. Back then, petitioner had a girlfriend,
Cristina, who was respondents friend as well. After he and Cristina broke
up, he lived in with another girlfriend, whom he found out was married.
Frustrated, he returned to his parents home and met respondent again
after a long while. This time, they were already college graduates and
were both scouting for employment. But as it was difficult to get an office
job then, they decided to be business partners by putting up a small food
cart business selling fish balls.
Page 02.

05. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.

06. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.

07. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.

08. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.

09. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.

10. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.

11. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.

Page 03.
12. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.

13.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

14. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.

15.Petitioner, convinced of the futility of his efforts, decided that he


deserves to start life anew with feelings of hope for a brighter future since
there is obviously no hope that respondent can cope up with her
obligations as wife;

16. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a


psychological evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope up with the
essential obligations of marriage. After evaluation, respondent was
found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations of marriage borne from her lack of maturity, which affected
her sense of rational judgment and responsibility. These traits reveal her
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the New Family Code of the
Philippines and is more appropriately labeled Anti-Social and Narcissistic
personality disorder ;

17.Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity.


Respondent showed no concern for her obligation towards her family in
violation of Art. 68 of the New Family Code which provides that husband
and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity and render mutual help and support.. Petitioner is also filing this
case under Art. 36 of the same Code as the respondent manifested
apparent personality disorder and psychological dysfunction, i.e. her lack
of effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise
peculiar to infants, by being psychologically immature and failing to
perform her responsibilities as wife;

Page 04.
18.That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable
and existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its
existence;

19.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the


marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be declared a nullity. It is likewise
prayed that if and when parties are able to enter into an extrajudicial settlement
as to custody and joint parenting, the same be adopted by this Court and in the
absence thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and obligations as parents
be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. We pray for such other reliefs, just and
equitable under the premises.

San Juan. May 12, 2009

Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA


Counsel for Petitioner
Wheels Executive Suites
Wheels Bldg., E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave.,
Quezon City
IBP No. 764814 dtd. 01-07-09Pasig City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/09/ Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2008

VERIFICATION

I, BANJO C. BERNARDO, of legal age, under oath, states:

01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;

02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;

Page 05.
03. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum shopping, I
hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; b) to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal
or agency; c) If I should learned that similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before such tribunals or bodies, I shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court of agency where the original pleading and sworn certification
have been filed.

BENJO C. BERNARDO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of May 2009,


affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.

Doc. No. ________


Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2009.

Republic of the Philippines


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
San Juan City
Branch ______

BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. ___________


For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X
PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto this


Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

20. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;

21.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;

22.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;

23.In retrospect petitioner and respondent were childhood friends, growing


up in the same neighborhood in Project 8 and were even schoolmates at
St. Patrick School in high school. Back then, petitioner had a girlfriend,
Cristina, who was respondents friend as well. After he and Cristina broke
up, he lived in with another girlfriend, whom he found out was married.
Frustrated, he returned to his parents home and met respondent again
after a long while. This time, they were already college graduates and
were both scouting for employment. But as it was difficult to get an office
job then, they decided to be business partners by putting up a small food
cart business selling fish balls.

Page 02.

24. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.

25. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.

26. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.

27. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.

28. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.

29. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.

30. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.

Page 03.

31. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.

32.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.
33. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.

34.Petitioner, convinced of the futility of his efforts, decided that he


deserves to start life anew with feelings of hope for a brighter future since
there is obviously no hope that respondent can cope up with her
obligations as wife;

35. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a


psychological evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope up with the
essential obligations of marriage. After evaluation, respondent was
found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations of marriage borne from her lack of maturity, which affected
her sense of rational judgment and responsibility. These traits reveal her
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the New Family Code of the
Philippines and is more appropriately labeled Anti-Social and Narcissistic
personality disorder ;

36.Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity.


Respondent showed no concern for her obligation towards her family in
violation of Art. 68 of the New Family Code which provides that husband
and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity and render mutual help and support.. Petitioner is also filing this
case under Art. 36 of the same Code as the respondent manifested
apparent personality disorder and psychological dysfunction, i.e. her lack
of effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise
peculiar to infants, by being psychologically immature and failing to
perform her responsibilities as wife;

Page 04.

37.That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable


and existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its
existence;

38.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the


marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be declared a nullity. It is likewise
prayed that if and when parties are able to enter into an extrajudicial settlement
as to custody and joint parenting, the same be adopted by this Court and in the
absence thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and obligations as parents
be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. We pray for such other reliefs, just and
equitable under the premises.

San Juan. May 12, 2009

Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA


Counsel for Petitioner
Wheels Executive Suites
Wheels Bldg., E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave.,
Quezon City
IBP No. 764814 dtd. 01-07-09Pasig City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/09/ Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2008

VERIFICATION

I, BANJO C. BERNARDO, of legal age, under oath, states:

01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;

02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;

Page 05.

03. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum shopping, I


hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; b) to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal
or agency; c) If I should learned that similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before such tribunals or bodies, I shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court of agency where the original pleading and sworn certification
have been filed.

BENJO C. BERNARDO

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of May 2009,
affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.

Doc. No. ________


Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2009.

Republic of the Philippines


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
San Juan City
Branch ______

BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. ___________


For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto this


Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

39. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;

40.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;

41.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;

42.In retrospect petitioner and respondent were childhood friends, growing


up in the same neighborhood in Project 8 and were even schoolmates at
St. Patrick School in high school. Back then, petitioner had a girlfriend,
Cristina, who was respondents friend as well. After he and Cristina broke
up, he lived in with another girlfriend, whom he found out was married.
Frustrated, he returned to his parents home and met respondent again
after a long while. This time, they were already college graduates and
were both scouting for employment. But as it was difficult to get an office
job then, they decided to be business partners by putting up a small food
cart business selling fish balls.

Page 02.

43. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.

44. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.

45. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.

46. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.

47. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.

48. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.

49. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.

Page 03.

50. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.

51.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

52. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.

53.Petitioner, convinced of the futility of his efforts, decided that he


deserves to start life anew with feelings of hope for a brighter future since
there is obviously no hope that respondent can cope up with her
obligations as wife;

54. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a


psychological evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope up with the
essential obligations of marriage. After evaluation, respondent was
found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations of marriage borne from her lack of maturity, which affected
her sense of rational judgment and responsibility. These traits reveal her
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the New Family Code of the
Philippines and is more appropriately labeled Anti-Social and Narcissistic
personality disorder ;

55.Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity.


Respondent showed no concern for her obligation towards her family in
violation of Art. 68 of the New Family Code which provides that husband
and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity and render mutual help and support.. Petitioner is also filing this
case under Art. 36 of the same Code as the respondent manifested
apparent personality disorder and psychological dysfunction, i.e. her lack
of effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise
peculiar to infants, by being psychologically immature and failing to
perform her responsibilities as wife;

Page 04.

56.That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable


and existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its
existence;

57.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the


marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be declared a nullity. It is likewise
prayed that if and when parties are able to enter into an extrajudicial settlement
as to custody and joint parenting, the same be adopted by this Court and in the
absence thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and obligations as parents
be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. We pray for such other reliefs, just and
equitable under the premises.

San Juan. May 12, 2009

Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA


Counsel for Petitioner
Wheels Executive Suites
Wheels Bldg., E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave.,
Quezon City
IBP No. 764814 dtd. 01-07-09Pasig City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/09/ Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2008

VERIFICATION

I, BANJO C. BERNARDO, of legal age, under oath, states:

01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;

02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;

Page 05.

03. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum shopping, I


hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; b) to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal
or agency; c) If I should learned that similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before such tribunals or bodies, I shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court of agency where the original pleading and sworn certification
have been filed.

BENJO C. BERNARDO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of May 2009,


affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.

Doc. No. ________


Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2009.
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
San Juan City
Branch ______

BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. ___________


For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto this


Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

58. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;

59.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;

60.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;

61.In retrospect petitioner and respondent were childhood friends, growing


up in the same neighborhood in Project 8 and were even schoolmates at
St. Patrick School in high school. Back then, petitioner had a girlfriend,
Cristina, who was respondents friend as well. After he and Cristina broke
up, he lived in with another girlfriend, whom he found out was married.
Frustrated, he returned to his parents home and met respondent again
after a long while. This time, they were already college graduates and
were both scouting for employment. But as it was difficult to get an office
job then, they decided to be business partners by putting up a small food
cart business selling fish balls.

Page 02.

62. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.

63. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.

64. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.

65. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.

66. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.

67. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.

68. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.
Page 03.

69. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.

70.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

71. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.

72.Petitioner, convinced of the futility of his efforts, decided that he


deserves to start life anew with feelings of hope for a brighter future since
there is obviously no hope that respondent can cope up with her
obligations as wife;

73. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a


psychological evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope up with the
essential obligations of marriage. After evaluation, respondent was
found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations of marriage borne from her lack of maturity, which affected
her sense of rational judgment and responsibility. These traits reveal her
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the New Family Code of the
Philippines and is more appropriately labeled Anti-Social and Narcissistic
personality disorder ;

74.Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity.


Respondent showed no concern for her obligation towards her family in
violation of Art. 68 of the New Family Code which provides that husband
and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity and render mutual help and support.. Petitioner is also filing this
case under Art. 36 of the same Code as the respondent manifested
apparent personality disorder and psychological dysfunction, i.e. her lack
of effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise
peculiar to infants, by being psychologically immature and failing to
perform her responsibilities as wife;
Page 04.

75.That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable


and existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its
existence;

76.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the


marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be declared a nullity. It is likewise
prayed that if and when parties are able to enter into an extrajudicial settlement
as to custody and joint parenting, the same be adopted by this Court and in the
absence thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and obligations as parents
be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. We pray for such other reliefs, just and
equitable under the premises.

San Juan. May 12, 2009

Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA


Counsel for Petitioner
Wheels Executive Suites
Wheels Bldg., E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave.,
Quezon City
IBP No. 764814 dtd. 01-07-09Pasig City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/09/ Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2008

VERIFICATION

I, BANJO C. BERNARDO, of legal age, under oath, states:

01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;

02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;
Page 05.

03. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum shopping, I


hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; b) to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal
or agency; c) If I should learned that similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before such tribunals or bodies, I shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court of agency where the original pleading and sworn certification
have been filed.

BENJO C. BERNARDO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of May 2009,


affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.

Doc. No. ________


Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2009.

Republic of the Philippines


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
San Juan City
Branch ______

BENJO C. BERNARDO,
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. ___________


For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

GRETCHEN B. GENOVEZA-BERNARDO,
Respondent.
X-------------------------X

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto this


Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

77. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne
St., San Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen
and a resident of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this Honorable Court;

78.Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally
married on December 2, 2002 at Sto Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay
Quezon City, a copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as
Annex A;

79.A child was born in wedlock, Bhenjiemien Yakov G. Bernardo, aged 6 years
old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex B;

80.In retrospect petitioner and respondent were childhood friends, growing


up in the same neighborhood in Project 8 and were even schoolmates at
St. Patrick School in high school. Back then, petitioner had a girlfriend,
Cristina, who was respondents friend as well. After he and Cristina broke
up, he lived in with another girlfriend, whom he found out was married.
Frustrated, he returned to his parents home and met respondent again
after a long while. This time, they were already college graduates and
were both scouting for employment. But as it was difficult to get an office
job then, they decided to be business partners by putting up a small food
cart business selling fish balls.

Page 02.

81. Aside from being business partners, they were likewise attracted to each other
physically. although there was no emotional attachments to one another, they
frequently indulged in sexual intimacies which resulted in respondents pregnancy.
Petitioner did not want to marry respondent for he knew her to be a playgirl, having
had a long list of boyfriends. He however vowed to support their child.

82. When petitioners parents, who were devout catholics and followers of the
conservative mater dei, came to know about respondents pregnancy, they prevailed
upon petitioner to marry respondent. Despite his protestations, they were married in
haste and in a simple church ceremony.

83. Unprepared to face the rigors of married life and with no visible means of livelihood,
the newly-weds lived with petitioners parents. Their first month of being married was
marred by frequent fights and disagreements as they were not really in love with each
other and were constantly at odds, no one giving in for the other.

84. A month after getting married or in January 2003, petitioner flew to California to work
as caregiver. He however sent money for respondents medical needs as she was
about to give birth. Despite financial support coming from petitioner, respondent felt
uncomfortable at her in-laws home. She left and went back to her parents.

85. Before his tourist visa expired, petitioner came back to the Philippines and attempted
to reconcile with respondent especially after seeing his baby. Respondent refused to
live again with petitioner. He was resigned to just visiting his baby boy from time to
time and giving financial support to their child.

86. Time went by with the parties living separately on their own. It became convenient
for both to live separately as they would constantly fight when they are together. Soon
petitioner got employed with a construction job owned by his relatives. Respondent
too became gainfully employed. Distance and separation drove both petitioner and
respondent to have their respective lovers.

87. This arrangement went on until petitioners student visa was approved and he was
slated to leave for the States sometime September 2005. Before he left, he talked
with respondent and they both agreed that they will both use the time away from
each other to think things over and determine if there is still a chance for them to get
back and live together as husband and wife when petitioner comes back from his
studies abroad.

Page 03.

88. While abroad, he not only studied but worked as well, taking in odd jobs
to support himself and his family. In 2006, it was respondents turn to go
abroad to work in Taiwan. Petitioner and respondent used to
communicate thru text messaging and they both agreed to come home.

89.Petitioner came back in January 2008, not long after, respondent came
home too. They both decided to try and live together again as a family.
Unfortunately, since both of them distrust each other, they frequent
arguments and disagreements. Worse, petitioner found out that
respondent had a boyfriend in Taiwan, who had remained in touch with
her. And worst, respondent had not severed her relationship with him,
thus, the guy maintained communications with her. This was the last
straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

90. To date, they have gone separate ways and there is no hope for
reconciliation.

91.Petitioner, convinced of the futility of his efforts, decided that he


deserves to start life anew with feelings of hope for a brighter future since
there is obviously no hope that respondent can cope up with her
obligations as wife;

92. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a


psychological evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope up with the
essential obligations of marriage. After evaluation, respondent was
found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations of marriage borne from her lack of maturity, which affected
her sense of rational judgment and responsibility. These traits reveal her
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the New Family Code of the
Philippines and is more appropriately labeled Anti-Social and Narcissistic
personality disorder ;

93.Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity.


Respondent showed no concern for her obligation towards her family in
violation of Art. 68 of the New Family Code which provides that husband
and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity and render mutual help and support.. Petitioner is also filing this
case under Art. 36 of the same Code as the respondent manifested
apparent personality disorder and psychological dysfunction, i.e. her lack
of effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise
peculiar to infants, by being psychologically immature and failing to
perform her responsibilities as wife;

Page 04.

94.That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable


and existed prior to the marriage and became manifest during its
existence;

95.That petitioner and respondent have not acquired any real properties in
the course of their marriage.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the


marriage of the petitioner with the respondent be declared a nullity. It is likewise
prayed that if and when parties are able to enter into an extrajudicial settlement
as to custody and joint parenting, the same be adopted by this Court and in the
absence thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and obligations as parents
be adjudicated by this Honorable Court. We pray for such other reliefs, just and
equitable under the premises.

San Juan. May 12, 2009

Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA


Counsel for Petitioner
Wheels Executive Suites
Wheels Bldg., E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave.,
Quezon City
IBP No. 764814 dtd. 01-07-09Pasig City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/09/ Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2008

VERIFICATION

I, BANJO C. BERNARDO, of legal age, under oath, states:

01. That I am the petitioner in this case and that I have caused the
preparation of the same petition;

02. That I attest to the truth of all the allegations in the same petition of my
own personal knowledge;

Page 05.

03. In compliance to the Supreme Court circular against forum shopping, I


hereby certify that: a) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; b) to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal
or agency; c) If I should learned that similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before such tribunals or bodies, I shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court of agency where the original pleading and sworn certification
have been filed.
BENJO C. BERNARDO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of May 2009,


affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.

Doc. No. ________


Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2009.