Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty.

Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
!E"#$NAL %!#AL C$&!%
Branch _______, City of Malabon
MA!#E E#!ENE F. MA!%#N'!E"LA
Petitioner,
-versus- Case No. _____________________
or !eclaration of Nullity of
Marriage
!#CH( N. !E"LA
Respondent.
"--------------------------------------------------"
)E%#%#$N
#he )E%#%#$NE!, MA!#E E#!ENE F. MA!%#N'!E"LA by counsel,
respectfully states that$
NA%&!E $F %HE )E%#%#$N
%. #his is a Petition for !eclaration of Nullity of Marriage on the
ground of the psychological incapacity of both spouses to perfor& their
essential &arital obligations.
%HE )A!%#E*
'. #he petitioner is a ilipino, of legal age, and a resident of Bl(. )'
*ot '+, ,aunlaran -illage, Phase .-/, Navotas City, for &ore than si0 123
&onths prior to the 4ling of the instant petition.
5. #he respondent is a ilipino, of legal age, and a resident of 67
Javier ., Malabon City.
%HE MA!!#A"E
Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty. Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
). #he petitioner and respondent &et in 8ctober '++' through
internet chatting. #heir courtship 9ent through that sa&e &ediu& as 9ell.
.n March '++5, the petitioner and respondent personally &et in the
Philippines.
6. #hen, on May ': '++:, they &arried at the Metropolitan #rial
Court of Ma(ati City, Branch 2'. .t 9as sole&ni;ed by <on. =ncarnacion >.
Moya. / copy of their &arriage contract is hereto attached as /nne0 ?/.@
2. #he petitioner and respondent 9ere both hesitant about the
9edding. #he petitioner 9as considering the respondentAs attitude and
4nancial status then. #he respondent, on the other hand, 9as 9orried that
their &arriage &ight aBect his papers in going to C9eden. <e also (ept the
9edding a secret fro& his fa&ily and relatives. But because the petitioner
9as already si0 123 &onths pregnant then, they decided to enter &arriage.
:. #he petitioner as(ed 4nancial help fro& her parents for the
9edding. #here 9as no help fro& the respondentAs parents because of
4nancial diDculties.
E. #9o 9ee(s after their 9edding, the respondent left for C9eden.
#he petitioner and respondent never lived together right fro& the start of
their &arriage.
7. #he respondent 9ould have brief vacations in the Philippines, but
they 9ould stay in the house of the petitionerAs father. /nd even during this
short period, they, or so&eti&es the respondent alone, 9ould visit his
&other and relatives in Bicol.
%+. #he petitioner gave birth to their co&&on son, Ro&eo *oren;o
M. >ua;on, on /ugust, '++6 in Navotas City. / copy of the birth certi4cate of
their son, their only child, is hereto attached as /nne0 ?B@. Custody of their
&inor child is 9ith the petitioner at present.
%%. #he petitioner painfully discovered that a certain 9o&an na&ed
?8live@, a naturali;ed C9edish, 9or(ed on the respondentAs travel docu&ents
to C9eden. Che also learned about the respondentAs unrelenting
9o&ani;ing.
Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty. Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
%'. /fter 8live, there 9ere t9o 1'3 &ore other 9o&en 9ho& she
learned the respondent had illicit relationships 9ith. #he respondent failed to
observe the &arital obligation of love and 4delity.
%5. Co&&unication bet9een the petitioner and respondent also
beca&e scarce. /nd due to their geographic distance, there 9as hardly any
&arital consortiu& bet9een the&. #he respondent even 9ent ho&e to the
Philippines 9ithout seeing his son right a9ay.
%). #he petitioner tried tal(ing to the respondent to try do so&ething
about their &arriage, but the respondent said that he does not love the
petitioner any&ore and he is not happy. <e even Fuestioned the petitioner
about &a(ing hi& thin( only about their son, and not about his personal
happiness as 9ell.
%6. #heir son 9ould usually loo( for the respondent, and 9ould cry in
the respondentAs absence. No9, their son has gotten used to the respondent
absence.
%2. #he respondent also failed to observe the essential &arital
obligation to support. #he respondent does not provide support for the
petitioner. #hin(ing for their son, the petitioner reFuested to increase the
&onthly support that the respondent sends for their child. #he respondent
reacted indignantlyG saying that the petitioner should budget for their child
because he 1the respondent3 has other e0penses and obligations of his o9n.
#hus, the petitioner is spending for herself and for their child.
%:. #he petitioner co&plains that the respondent is insincere,
irresponsible, unfaithful and unloving. #he petitioner 9as hurt 9hen the
respondent got involved 9ith several 9o&enG thoughtlessly introducing
hi&self as an un&arried &an.
%E. #he respondent bla&ed the petitioner for being a very
de&anding 9ifeG for &a(ing hi& feel un9orthy, and for the petitionerAs clai&
that he is a poor se0ual partner.
%7. #he petitioner and respondent separated in '+%+. #he petitioner
also sees no probability of reconciliation.
Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty. Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
'+. Hhen they &arried, the petitioner and respondent only had the
default property regi&e of /bsolute Co&&unity of Property. Nonetheless,
they did not acFuire properties during their &arriage, e0cept those that have
&ini&al value and for personal use. #he spouses have no substantial
a&ount of debt.
%HE )*(CH$L$"#CAL E+AL&A%#$N
'%. .n ebruary '+%+, the petitioner 9ent to !r/. =dna Chua, M.!. to
see( professional psychologicalIpsychiatric advice and guidance regarding
the status of her &arriage. / copy of !r. ChuaAs Professional Pro4le is hereto
attached as /nne0 ?C@.
''. #he petitioner 9as subJected to &ental status e0a&inations and
psychiatric evaluation in the sa&e &onth.
'5. !r. =dna Chua also invited the respondent and his relatives
through registered &ail to recount on his side of the &arital state and to
sub&it hi&self to psychiatric evaluation. #he respondent failed to appear,
but called up !r. Chua on several occasions and agreed to several phone
intervie9s. <e also sent an e-&ail letter 9hich contained his thoughts,
senti&ents and observations on the &arital state and data about his
personal bac(ground.
'). .n /pril '+%+, there 9as data gathering fro& the respondentAs
cousin, /ndy Regla.
'6. #he spousesA psychodyna&ics and psychological adeFuacy for
&arriage 9ere analy;ed. / probe into the e0tent, gravity, prognosis,
per&anence and the root causes of any psychopathology 9as &ade.
'2. #he ,syc-iatric clinical inter.ie/ included gathering of the
data regarding the presence of &edical and psychiatric disordersG the
personal history K prenatal and prenatal, early, &iddle and late childhood
through puberty and the adolescence periodG adulthood 1social activities,
educational, occupational and &ilitary bac(ground, current living situation,
and legal history3, the psychose0ual history and the fa&ily history.
Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty. Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
':. #he Mental *tatus E0a1inati2ns 3M*E4s5 included an
appraisal of the subJectAs behavior, psycho&otor activityG cognitive tests 1to
assess sensoriu&, orientation, &e&ory test, attention and concentration,
constructional s(ill, tests of the higher cognitive functions as general fund of
infor&ation and intelligence, calculational, abstract thin(ing, reasoning and
Judg&ent, insight3G an evaluation of the e&otional status 1&ood, aBect and
appropriateness or deviation fro& the nor&al &ood, aBect3G an evaluation of
the speech patterns 1Fuality ad Fuantity3, an evaluation of perceptual
disturbancesG and thought appraisal 1process or fro& and content3.
%HE )E%#%#$NE!4* BAC6"!$&N7
'E. .n the psychological evaluation, it 9as learned that the
petitioner, the eldest in the brood of four, 9as born on Cepte&ber %2, %7E+,
in Lue;on City.
'7. <er father, N2lasc2 7e Martin, 6) years old, a high school
graduate and a 9arehouse supervisorIsecurity guard, is a si&ple and a
patient &an.
5+. <er &other, Anna- Falles82n' 7e Martin 1deceased3, a
govern&ent e&ployee, 9as an a&icable 9o&an, 9hose suicide 1ingestion of
poison3 shoc(ed the petitioner 9hen she 9as a teenager. /fter her &otherAs
death, her father &arried a teacher.
5%. Prior to &arrying the respondent, the petitioner had been in
relationships 9ith three 153 boyfriends. #hese relationships bro(e do9n
either because of lac( of co&&unication, or irreconcilable diBerences.
%HE !E*)$N7EN%4* BAC6"!$&N7
5'. 8n the other hand, the respondent is the youngest in the brood
of three. <e 9as born on /pril %', %7:7 in Pasig City. <is father, Aureli2 7.
!egla., 2' years old, a high school graduate, is a 9elder and technician in
Bicol. <e had a great diDculty feeding his children and sending the& to
school.
Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty. Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
55. #he respondentAs father has a great predilection to drin( and is
al9ays drun(. Because of this, the respondent prefers to be 9ith his &other.
5). #he respondentAs father 9as generous to his friends but
neglectful of his fa&ilyG such to an e0tent that &uch priority is given to
having a drin(ing spree 9ith his friends rather than the needs of his fa&ily.
56. #he respondent gre9 up 9ith not &uch guidance fro& his
parents. Hhen his father ca&e ho&e fro& 9or(, the latter i&&ediately
leaves again to have a drin(ing spree 9ith his friends. <is &other, on the
other hand, co&es ho&e at night.
52. #he respondent had a history of drin(ing too &uch alcohol and
ga&bling.
5:. #he petitioner ad&itted that she did not prefer to stay 9ith the
respondentAs fa&ily because she did not 9ant their son to 9itness the
drin(ing and ga&bling habits of the respondentAs father and brother.
5E. #he petitioner noticed that the respondentAs fa&ily in Bicol is
heavily reliant upon the respondent for their needs. Che sa9 that there 9as
no closeness and love in the &e&bers of the respondentAs fa&ily.
%HE F#N7#N"* AN7 !EC$MMEN7A%#$N
57. .n her Psychiatric =valuation of the petitioner and respondent,
!ra. Chua found both the petitioner and respondent to be psychologically
incapacitated to perfor& their essential &arital obligations. / copy of the
Psychiatric =valuation is hereto attached as /nne0 ?!,@ and is &ade an
integral part of this petition.
)+. .n the Psychiatric =valuation, !ra. Chua said that there is a
legiti&ate ground for the declaration of the nullity of instant &arriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity to co&ply 9ith the essential &arital
duties. Che strongly reco&&ended the declaration of its nullity.
)%. #he petitioner and respondentAs &arital at&osphere is unhealthy
and unpleasant. <o9ever, !ra. Chua said that the petitioner should also
loo( into her share in the brea(do9n of the &arriage.
Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty. Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
)'. Narcissistic and i&pulsive, both the petitioner and respondent
have a heightened sense of entitle&ent and self-i&portance. #hey lac( the
e&pathy. #hey are un9illing to earnestly recogni;e and act on the needs
and feelings of the other spouse.
)5. /ccording to !ra. >arcia, the respondent has a narcissistic
personality disorder 19ith antisocial and dependent features3, as per criteria
set in the !iagnostic and Ctatistical Manual of Mental !isorders, ourth
=dition #e0t Revision 1!CM .--#R '+++3.
)). /lthough the respondent has been able to function
occupationally, he has been a deceitful partner 19ho is not genuinely
repentant3 and a neglectful and an unsy&pathetic parent. #he root cause
9as brought about by the long history of predica&ent e0pressing
disagree&ent 9ith others 1particularly his fa&ily &e&bers3 because of his
apprehension regarding the loss of support, love or approval. #his proved to
be detri&ental to his &arriage to the petitioner.
)6. Mean9hile, the petitioner has Cluster B histrionic and narcissistic
personality disordered traits. *i(e the respondent, she tends to be self-
pro&oting. /dditionally, she displays aBective instability 9hich &a(es her at
ris( to developing a &ood disturbance. Che, too, has the strong proclivity to
Fuestion the trust9orthiness of her partner. But her traits are not as
blatantly debilitating and per&anent as the respondentAs.
)2. #he petitioner and respondentAs psychological incapacity 1to
co&ply 9ith the funda&ental &arital tas(s3 has r22t causes 2r eti2l2gical
9eter1inants. #heir pathology is an after&ath of their genetic &a(e-up
interacting 9ith their fa&ilialIpsychosocialIdevelop&ental e0periences 1i.e.
loss of love obJectsG e&otional and &aterial deprivationG e0posure to
unhealthy role &odels and other da&aging negative e0periences3 and these
&ade the& very vulnerable to the develop&ent of adult psychopathology.
):. #o reiterate, the petitioner and respondent failed to &anage a
co&&on household and to give the other the support, aBection and
understanding. #hey both co&plained that the other partner is insincere,
irresponsible, self-pro&oting, unfaithful and unloving.
Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty. Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
)E. Both spouses have &anifestations of psychological incapacity to
co&ply 9ith their essential &arital duties. #he respondent is the &ore
culpable spouse. #he petitioner is the better parent.
)7. #he respondentAs pattern of behaviour is ,er.asi.e an9
stea9y: its 2nset can ;e trace9 ;ack t2 -is a92lescence. <is gra.e
,syc-2l2gical inca,acity to perfor& his &arital duties, is ,er1anent an9
incura;le. #here are no &edications or even long-ter& psychotherapy
9hich can adeFuately address his psychological Ma9s.
)!A(E!
WHE!EF$!E, it is respectfully prayed that the &arriage of Marie
Eirene F. Martin'!egla and Richy N. Reglabe declared as null and void.
8ther Just and eFuitable reliefs are li(e9ise prayed for.
Lue;on City for the City of Malabon. '6 /ugust '+%+.
AB$ AN7 )E<A LAW $FF#CE
Counsel for the Petitioner
Nnit '+5, #i&es CFuare Building
#i&es Ctreet corner =0a&iner Ctreet
Hest #riangle, Lue;on City %%+)
#el. No. +'-566-72-'5
By$
!$BE!% ". AB$
Roll No. )76)5
P#R No. E':):::, %-%%-%+, Manila
.BP No. E+62EE, %-2-%+, Manila ...
MC*= Co&pliance No. ...-++%%6+5, )-
+E-%+
Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty. Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
+E!#F#CA%#$N an9 CE!%#F#CA%#$N
A"A#N*% F$!&M *H$))#N"
., MA!#E E#!ENE F. MA!%#N'!E"LA, ilipino, of legal age, and 9ith address
at Bl(. )' *ot '+, ,aunlaran -illage, Phase .-/, Navotas City, after having
been s9orn in accordance 9ith la9, hereby depose and state that$
%. . a& the petitioner in the above-captioned case.
'. /s such, . caused the preparation of the foregoing petition and
have read and understood the sa&e. #he contents of 9hich are true and
correct based on &y personal (no9ledge and authentic docu&ents at hand.
5. . have not co&&enced any other action or proceeding involving
issues si&ilar to those in this case in any other court of Justice, tribunal or
agency, and that to the best of &y (no9ledge, no such other action or
proceeding is pending therein. .n the event that hereafter learn that any
such case or cases has been 4led or is pending, . underta(e to report such
fact 9ithin 4ve 163 days therefro& to this <onorable Court.
.N H.#N=CC H<=R=8, . have hereunto set &y hand this ____ day of
______________________ at ___________ City.
MA!#E E#!ENE F. MA!%#N'
!E"LA
Afant
*&B*C!#BE7 AN7 *W$!N to before &e this ____________________
'+%+ at ___________________. #he aDant e0hibited to &e her
________________________________ ..!. nu&bered as ___________________________
as co&petent proof of her identity.
W#%NE** M( HAN7 AN7 *EAL.
Marie Hazel C. Nala Atty. Erika
Frances Buluran
Legal Writing August 8, 201
!oc. No. _____G
Page No. _____G
Boo( No. _____G
Ceries of '+%+.