Scribd
Upload
1K views6 pages

Petition For Annulment of Marriage

Rhea Chua filed a petition for nullity of her marriage to Rey Chua under Article 36 of the Family Code based on psychological incapacity. Rhea and Rey were married in 1999 and have three children together. Rhea claims that shortly after they married, Rey began exhibiting unstable, troublesome and quarrelsome behavior such as abandoning his job, gambling, using drugs and alcohol, and womanizing. Rey also refused to be intimate with Rhea or have more children. Rhea tried to discuss their issues with Rey but he ignored her pleas. She is now seeking a judicial decree declaring their marriage null and void due to Rey's psychological incapacity.

Uploaded by

lena
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views6 pages

Petition For Annulment of Marriage

Rhea Chua filed a petition for nullity of her marriage to Rey Chua under Article 36 of the Family Code based on psychological incapacity. Rhea and Rey were married in 1999 and have three children together. Rhea claims that shortly after they married, Rey began exhibiting unstable, troublesome and quarrelsome behavior such as abandoning his job, gambling, using drugs and alcohol, and womanizing. Rey also refused to be intimate with Rhea or have more children. Rhea tried to discuss their issues with Rey but he ignored her pleas. She is now seeking a judicial decree declaring their marriage null and void due to Rey's psychological incapacity.

Uploaded by

lena
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


11th JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH XVI

Rhea D. Chua,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 342567


For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage under Article 36
of the Family Code

Rey Y. Chua,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------------x

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and to this


Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:

1. Petitioner Rhea D. Chua is of legal age, married, Filipino and


resident of 36 Caimito St. Chula Vista Subdivision, Cabantian, Davao City;

2. Respondent Rey Y. Chua is likewise of legal age, married, Filipino


and presently residing at 36 Caimito St. Chula Vista Subdivision, Cabantian,
Davao City;

3. Petitioner and respondent celebrated their marriage on June 14,


1999 before the Parish Church of St. Jude, Malvar St. Davao City, certified
true copy of their Marriage Certificate is attached and made integral part
hereof as Annex “A”;

4. Petitioner and respondent have three children. They have no


written agreement executed before the marriage to govern their property
relations or have any community property acquired during their marriage.
They have no debts;

5. Petitioner met the respondent sometime in 1995 in City of Cebu


when she had her vacation. Their romance culminated in a marriage before
the priest of St. Jude Thaddeus Parish of Davao City;

6. In a short span of time they had been together, this is the time
which the petitioner describes as a period where the respondent’s
instability, psychological or otherwise, showed up;

7. Other instances, wherein such instability could be reasonably


inferred are as follows that:

a. After their marriage, the respondent gave up his job at


Mercury Drug Corporation as a Branch Manager without justifiable reason;

b. 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. The respondent is a compulsive gambler;

d. He is a womanizer;

e. He resorts to drug and alcohol abuse during their cohabitation;

f. The respondent does not want to have a child with the


petitioner because according to him it will just cause burden for him;

g. 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. During their honeymoon period, things were running smoothly


between them, but not on the succeeding week, when the respondent’s
instability started to manifest clearly to the petitioner. Their relationship
lasted sometime in 2015;

9. Some other manifestations of the psychological and emotional


disturbances on the part of the respondent can be cited as follows that:

a. 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 the part
of the petitioner;
b. 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. Respondent began hurting the petitioner physically by


throwing things on her and shoving her around;

d. Respondent did not stop gambling and using alcohol and drugs;

e. Respondent abandoned the petitioner and left to be with


another woman. Since April 2015, 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. 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. Further, respondent’s 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. The respondent’s 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 petitioner’s marriage with the
respondent;

13. 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
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.

Davao City, 12 February 2020.

(SGD.) Carl P. Diaz


Counsel for Plaintiff
Notary Public for Davao City
Commission Serial No. 2020-8901-2022
Until December 31, 2021
Attorney’s Roll No. 10772
PTR No. 7862245 B; 01-02-20; Davao City
IBP O.R. No. 024454; 01-02-20; Davao City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
CITY OF DAVAO ) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, Rhea D. Chua, Filipino, of legal age residing at 36 Caimito St. Chula


Vista Subdivision, Cabantian, Davao City, after being sworn to in accordance
with law, deposes and says that:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. The facts stated in the above petition are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and authentic records;

3. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending in
them; and

4. If I should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending after its filing, I shall report that fact within five
days from notice to the court or where the petition has been filed.

Davao City, Philippines, this 12th day of February 2020.

(SGD.) Rhea D. Chua


Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this 12th day of February 2020,
in the City of Davao by Rhea D. Chua with Passport No. 2009012 issued on
17th of March 2019 at Department of Foreign Affairs – Gaisano Mall of
Tagum that she is the same person who signed the foregoing document
before me and acknowledged that she voluntarily executed the same.
(SGD.) GRIDLIN A. MATILAC
Notary Public for Davao City
Commission Serial No. 2020-0379-2022
Doc. No. 88 Until December 31, 2021
Page No. 19 Attorney’s Roll No. 10772
Book No. I PTR No. 7862245 B; 01-02-20; Davao City
Series of 2020 IBP O.R. No. 024454; 01-02-20; Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. 003425
Notarial Commission No. 123456

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy