Republic of the Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch __
Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro

GRACE E. ROPELOS,
Petitioner,

- versus - Civil Case No. ________

For: Declaration of Nullity of Void
Marriage

EDGARDO C. SY,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------x

PETITION

PETITIONER, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully petitions that a decision be rendered in the instant case declaring as
null and void ab initio the marriage between her and the Respondent by alleging
that:

1. The Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of Poblacion,

Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. She may be served notices, pleadings and
processes at the address of her undersigned counsel. On the other hand,
Respondent is of legal age, Filipino, and a resident also of Poblacion, Bongabong,
Oriental Mindoro, where he may be served summons and other court processes.

2. Petitioner seeks a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage with the

Respondent allegedly celebrated on July 31, 1991 in the City of Manila on the
grounds that (1) it was entered into (a) without marriage license and (b) without
marriage ceremony; and (2) respondent is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations.

3. Petitioner met Respondent in Manila sometime in 1990. Their casual

acquaintanceship turned into friendship and soon thereafter, they became
sweethearts. Petitioner’s father, who was a very stern military man, was strongly
against their relationship and so they hid their relationship from him. Prevailed
upon by respondent, petitioner succumbed to sexual his advances and agreed to
have sexual intercourse with him. Thinking that she got pregnant as a result of
their indiscretion, she informed respondent about it and told him that her father
might kill her. Anticipating the possible reaction of petitioner’s father, respondent
brought petitioner on July 31, 1991 to the City Hall of Manila to secure a “secret
marriage”. They were assisted by fixers roaming around the premises of the City
Hall and were made to sign a marriage contract. Copy thereof is hereto attached as
Annex “A”.
4. It turned out petitioner was not really pregnant. However, one time, they
were caught by petitioner’s father in the act of sexual intercourse inside the latter’s
house in Manila and because of this, he demanded respondent to marry petitioner.
Respondent told him that he and the petitioner were already married as early as
July 31, 1991. He showed him a copy of the marriage contract he secured from the
City Hall of Manila but this made petitioner’s father angrier. He demanded that
they be married anew, specially that they were living in already. Thus, at gun
point, a marriage confirmation ceremony was performed on March 7, 1992. But
this second marriage was also without the required marriage license.

5. Out of cohabitation, petitioner and respondent had four (4) common

children, namely: 1) JEFFREY DAVE who was born on June 5, 1992; 2)
PRINCESS JANINE who was born on April 23, 1994; 3) RIENNA MADEL; and
4) JHOANNA BEATRIZ who was born on April 25, 2007. Copies of their
certificates of live birth are hereto attached as Annexes “B”, “C”, “D” and “E”,
respectively.

6. The marriage between petitioner and respondent evidenced by Annex

“A” hereof is void from the very start because it was without the required marriage
license. The marriage license stated in the said marriage contract is inexistent. As
can be noted, it was allegedly secured on the same date of the marriage from
Carmona, Cavite. Petitioner denies going to Carmona, Cavite to apply for any
marriage license. Notable also from the marriage contract is that it was without the
consent or advice of their parents.

7. Also, no marriage ceremony was performed where the petitioner and

respondent appeared personally before the solemnizing officer to declare in his
presence that they take each other as husband and wife. As earlier said, what
happened was the mechanical signing of the marriage contract in the presence of
the fixer who assisted them secure a copy of the marriage contract. They did not
appear before the solemnizing officer mentioned in the marriage contract and they
did not the witnesses indicated therein.

2
 8. Article 4 of the Family Code provides that the absence of any of the
essential or formal requisites of marriage like marriage license and marriage
ceremony shall render the marriage void ab initio.

9. Petitioner filed the instant petition to sever her relationship with the
respondent because life with him has become unbearable. Immediately after their
marriage, respondent became irritable. He easily got mad over petty things and
made petitioner a robot by being dictatorial on family and even personal matters.
Her life with him has been a hell from the very start up to the present and their
children also became victim to respondent’s beastly character. He verbally
assaulted petitioner and inflicted physical violence on her and on their common
children. Petitioner suffered in silence in the hope that he would mend his ways.
However, respondent became worse. He became addicted to gambling. Instead of
devoting his time for his family, he spent most of his time with his barkadas. He
frequented casinos and cockpits and stayed away from home just to satisfy his
vices. He also engaged in extra-marital affairs even with their house helper and he
has the temerity to publicly display his infidelities in utter show of lack of love,
care or concern for his family.

10. Whenever petitioner confronted him about his shortcomings, he

inflicted physical injuries on her and this happened on several occasions. The
emotional, economic and physical abuse gradually increased. Lately, the physical
violence has become more frequent to the point that respondent would follow her
whenever she went just to harm her. He also threatened to kill her several times to
drive her away of their house in Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. Petitioner refused
to leave Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro and hoping to soften the stance of
respondent, she filed case of violations of RA 9262 against him. Copy of her
statements including documentary attachments are hereto attached as Annexes “F”
and “G”.

11. Recently, an unidentified gunman entered the house where petitioner

stayed and shot her. She was just lucky she escaped unharmed but her companion
was hit in the stomach. She suspects that respondent had a hand in this recent
event in her life.

12. As it is, respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the

essential marital obligations mandated by the Family of the Philippines as
manifested by the events that transpired during and after their cohabitation. He
utterly failed to extend that love, respect and fidelity to petitioner and their
common children. It will thus be contrary to the tenets and philosophy of the
establishment of marriage to compel petitioner to remain in a marital bond that no
longer serves its purpose;

3
 13. Incidentally, the parties did not acquire any property that may be the
subject of liquidation, partition and distribution in the instant case. Their common
children are all in the custody of the petitioner.

14. It is in the light of the foregoing considerations that the Petitioner prays
of this Honorable Court to declare as void her marriage with the Respondent so
that she can extricate herself from a literally farcical marriage and start a new life.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

IT IS SO PRAYED. Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, February 15, 2016.

Atty. EDUARDO M. MAGSINO

Counsel for the Petitioner
57 Dau St., Sityo Balite, Ipil
Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro
Roll of Attorney No. 45398
MCLE No. IV-0022630/Oct. 29, 2013
PTR No. 6376803/Jan. 4, 2016
Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro
IBP No. 1024289/Jan. 11, 2016
Oriental Mindoro Chapter

Copy furnished by registered mail due to distance:

Office of the Solicitor General Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

134 Amorsolo St, Legaspi Village Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro
Makati City, Metro Manila