Janice Arceo filed a petition for nullity of marriage against Rhoieland Arceo on the grounds of psychological incapacity. They were married in 2003 and have two children together. Janice alleges that Rhoieland exhibited unstable behavior such as quitting his job, gambling, womanizing, and drug and alcohol abuse during their marriage. Rhoieland also physically abused Janice and abandoned her in 2003. Janice argues that Rhoieland is psychologically incapable of fulfilling his marital obligations. She is seeking a court order declaring their marriage null and void.
Janice Arceo filed a petition for nullity of marriage against Rhoieland Arceo on the grounds of psychological incapacity. They were married in 2003 and have two children together. Janice alleges that Rhoieland exhibited unstable behavior such as quitting his job, gambling, womanizing, and drug and alcohol abuse during their marriage. Rhoieland also physically abused Janice and abandoned her in 2003. Janice argues that Rhoieland is psychologically incapable of fulfilling his marital obligations. She is seeking a court order declaring their marriage null and void.
Janice Arceo filed a petition for nullity of marriage against Rhoieland Arceo on the grounds of psychological incapacity. They were married in 2003 and have two children together. Janice alleges that Rhoieland exhibited unstable behavior such as quitting his job, gambling, womanizing, and drug and alcohol abuse during their marriage. Rhoieland also physically abused Janice and abandoned her in 2003. Janice argues that Rhoieland is psychologically incapable of fulfilling his marital obligations. She is seeking a court order declaring their marriage null and void.
Janice Arceo filed a petition for nullity of marriage against Rhoieland Arceo on the grounds of psychological incapacity. They were married in 2003 and have two children together. Janice alleges that Rhoieland exhibited unstable behavior such as quitting his job, gambling, womanizing, and drug and alcohol abuse during their marriage. Rhoieland also physically abused Janice and abandoned her in 2003. Janice argues that Rhoieland is psychologically incapable of fulfilling his marital obligations. She is seeking a court order declaring their marriage null and void.
For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Art. 36 of Family Code
PETITION COMES NOW petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges: 1. That petitioner Janice Alberto Arceo is of legal age, married, Filipino and resident of 1473 G. Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila; 2. That respondent Rhoieland Arceo is likewise of legal age, married, Filipino and presently residing at 1473 G. Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila; 3. That petitioner and respondent celebrated their marriage on December 28, 2003 before the Parish Church of San Agustin, Manila, certified true copy of their Marriage Certificate is attached and made integral part hereof as Annex A; 4. That petitioner and respondent have two child. They have no written agreement executed before the marriage to govern their property relations nor have any community property acquired during their marriage. They have no debts; 5. That petitioner met the respondent sometime in 1998 in City of Manila. Their romance culminated in a marriage before the priest of San Agustin church; 1
6. That in a short span of time they had been together, this is the time which the petitioner describes as a period where the respondents instability, psychological or otherwise, showed up; 7. That other instances, wherein such instability could be reasonably inferred are as follows: a. After their marriage, the respondent gave up his job at F. D. Roque & Associates as Assistant Manager without justifiable reason; b. That 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.
That the respondent is a compulsive gambler;
d.
He is a womanizer;
e. He cohabitation;
resorts
to
drug
and
alcohol
abuse
during
their
f. That the respondent does not want to have a child with the petitioner because according to him it will just cause burden for him; g. That 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. That during their honeymoon period, things were running smoothly between them, but not on the succeeding week, when the respondents instability started to manifest clearly to the petitioner. Their relationship lasted sometime in 2003; 9. That some other manifestations of the psychological and emotional disturbances on the part of the respondent can be cited as follows: a. That 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 2
the part of the petitioner;
b. That 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. That respondent began hurting the petitioner physically by throwing things on her and shoving her around; d. That respondent did not stop gambling and using alcohol and drugs; e. The respondent abandoned the petitioner and left to be with another woman. Since May 2003, 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. That 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. That further, respondents 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. That the respondents 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 petitioners marriage with the respondent; 13. That 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 3
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. City of Manila, January 22, 2016.
CARINO, CAMBRI AND ASSOCIATE LAW
OFFICES By: ______________ Atty. Edward Carino Commission Serial No. 14344 Until December 31, 2016 Roll of Attorney 34555 IBP. No.2222/January 1, 2005/Manila P.T.R. No. 2223/January 1, 2016 Roll No. 2256
VERIFICATION-CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING I, Janice Alberto Arceo, of legal age, Filipino citizen, resident of 1473 G. Masangkay St., Sta Cruz, Manila, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say: 1. That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case; 2. That I caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition; 3. That all the allegations therein are true and correct of my own knowledge and based on authentic records; 4. That I hereby certify under oath that I have not heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, and that to the best of my knowledge, there is no other action or proceeding, which is pending before this Honorable Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court or any other tribunal or agency involving the same parties and the same issues, and that if I learn hereafter that 5
there are other proceedings pending before this Honorable Court, or any other tribunal or agency, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court. Manila, Philippines, January 22, 2016.
_____________ Janice Alberto Arceo Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22 day of January, 2016 at Manila. Affiant exhibited to me her Filipino Passport No. 12532 issued at Manila. Atty. Edward Carino Commission Serial No. 14344 Until December 31, 2016 Roll of Attorney 34555 IBP. No.2222/January 1, 2005/Manila P.T.R. No. 2223/January 1, 2016 Roll No. 2256 Doc. No. _____; Page No. _____; Book No. _____; Series of 2016.
