1

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
City of Manila
Branch 6

Felixberto P. Gonzales,
Petitioner,

- Versus - Civil Case No. 10872
For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage
Georgina David- Gonzales
Respondent.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

PETITION

COMES NOW petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of
Block 42 Lot 27 Bonifacio St. Capitol Heights, Makati City,
while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen and
a resident of 1901 K Int 9. Zamora St., Pandacan Manila,
where she may be served with summons, orders and other
legal processes of this Honorable Court;
2. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having
been legally married on February 14, 2009 at San Fernando
De Dilao Parish, in Paco Manila, a copy of their marriage
certificate is hereto attached as Annex A;

3. A child was born in wedlock, Felix George D. Gonzales, aged
4 years old, a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is hereto
attached as Annex B;

2


4. In retrospect petitioner and respondent became known to
each other through a mutual friend on a social networking
site, Facebook. Back then, petitioner is working abroad as a
Caregiver in Parramatta, Western Australia and respondent
is a caretaker of a condominium in Espanya, Manila. After 4
months of continuous exchange of chat messages and more
often video calling, Petitioner then admitted that he had
developed romantic feelings towards the respondent and the
latter also admitted the same. After a year of being in a long
distance online relationship, the petitioner then decided to
go back to the Philippines and personally meet the
respondent and her family.

5. The petitioner, during his stay in Manila, lived together with
the respondent. They cohabited for 3 months in the
condominium managed by the respondent although it was
against the will of the petitioner since he still believed in the
importance of marriage but the respondent impetuously
insisted and gave threats to hurt herself if the petitioner will
not agree with that situation. The petitioner ignored the acts
exhibited by the respondent thinking that it will just go
away. Petitioner then decided to just wait for the parents of
the respondent to visit Manila since they were residing in
Zamboanga.

6. Petitioner and respondent indulged in sexual intimacies at
that time which resulted in the pregnancy of the latter. The
petitioners parents being a devout Catholic prevailed to
have the petitioner and respondent be married before the
petitioner fly back to Australia.

7. After getting married on February 2009, petitioner then flew
back to Australia and respondent lived with his in-laws in
Makati temporarily while she was pregnant and after giving
birth the petitioners parents decided to let the respondent

3

stay with them since there will be no one to look after their
grandchildren.

8. Months after giving birth to their child the respondent then
returned to the condominium in Manila and left the child to
her in-laws. Respondent then lived as if she doesnt have a
responsibility and only goes home to visit the child once a
week or when she is not out to get drunk every weekend.
The in-laws didnt inform the petitioner as of yet since they
are worried of the situation of the petitioner abroad.
Although the petitioner believed there is something wrong
since the respondent often do not answer his calls.

9. Petitioner found out the issue when a relative of him
informed him about the whereabouts of the respondent.
Petitioner was told that the respondent also goes out with
friends. He was also informed that the respondent is
hurting their child if she is drunk which was witnessed by
their house helper.

10. Frustrated, petitioner went back to the Philippines and had
a confrontation with the respondent. It was not a peaceful
conversation and the respondent again threatened to hurt
herself, their child and the petitioner. Respondent only
pacified when the petitioner attempted to call the Police.
After the incident, the respondent became very apologetic
and acted as if nothing happened.

11. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist who conducted a
psychological evaluation on the personality exhibited by the
respondent. After evaluation, respondent was found to be
psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital
obligations of marriage borne from her erratic and impulsive
behavior which affected her sense of rational judgment and

4

responsibility. These traits reveal her psychological
incapacity under Art. 36 of the New Family Code of the
Philippines and is more appropriately labeled Bipolar
Affective Disorder.

12. 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;

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

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










5

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.

Manila. August 7, 2014

Atty. Vienna Eleize B. Mantiza
Counsel for Petitioner
Cityland Tower
Pasong Tamo, Makati City
IBP No. 456729 dtd.01-07-13Manila
PTR No. 5448574/01/14/09/Manila
Roll No. 12345
MCLE Compliance II 0009456
Dtd. March 27, 2014










6

VERIFICATION

I, FELIXBERTO GONZALES, 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 there from to the court of agency where the
original pleading and sworn certification have been filed.

FELIXBERTO P. GONZALES
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of August 2014,
affiant exhibited to me his ______________ dated ________________ issued in
_________________.


Doc. No. ________
Page No. ________
Book No. _______
Series of 2014