Nullity of Marriage

Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch __, Las Pinas City
EDUARDO O. DAMAYO,
Petitioner,
-versus- Civil Case No. _________

FOR: Declaration of Nullity
Of Marriage
MA. KRISTINE S. NARAJA-DAMAYO,

Respondent.
x---------------------------------------x
PETITION
PETITIONER, through counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
state that:
1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of23 Gloria Diaz
St. BF Resort Las Pinas City for more than one (1) year already. He may be serve with
Orders, Resolutions, Decisions and other court processes and pleadings through the
undersigned counsel at23 Gloria Diaz St. BF Resort Las Pinas City.
2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of Sta.

Cecilia Village, Valley 1 Subdivision Paranaque City, where she may be served summons
and other court processes.
3. Petitioner and respondent were childhood sweethearts; they were

neighbors since their parents were also childhood friends. They started their romantic
relationship during their college days when they realized that they love each other more
than just a friend.
4. After they graduated from college, they both worked abroad for two (2)
years, they had a long distance relationship for those years.
5. When they both finished their working contracts abroad, they went back
to Philippines; and both decided to stay here for good to continue their career and start
to plan about their future lives together.
6. After their six (6) years relationship as boyfriend-girlfriend, petitioner

proposed a marriage to the respondent; and she accepted the proposal of marriage.
They became engaged for one (1) year before they got married sometime in February
14, 2014.
Copy of the Marriage Certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”.
7. Even they known each other for decades, petitioner observed that the
respondent is very emotional and very sensitive, the former thought that this may
change as they grow older and when they become matured. Unfortunately, the
respondent did not change at all even after they get married.
8. Although petitioner believed that he was a non-confrontational type of

individual, and he thought that he can still manage this behavior of the respondent
because he really love her, still, when he was being pushed to the limits of his patience,
the same could trigger his outburst. During their marriage, petitioner and respondent
always fought each other, at the instance of the respondent. In their frequent
altercations, respondent often shouted invectives against the petitioner. Respondent will
throw anything at the petitioner just to physically hurt him and afterward she will self-
pity and will cry endless to the point that they need a medical assistance.
9. On the other hand, because of the over-emotional and over-sensitive

behavior of the respondent, petitioner got irritable feeling towards the respondent, the
latter was always thought that the former does not love her anymore and will leave her
and even tried threated the petitioner to commit suicide just to get his attention.
10. Because of the situation of the relationship between the petitioner and
respondent, the latter got fed up and leave their home for a months tried to figure out
everything.
11. Respondent learned that petitioner, months after leaving their home had
amorous relationship with other woman. Respondent, indeed, saw the insensitivity of
the petitioner towards her. Petitioner had no care at all to the respondent whenever the
latter will get emotional again. Although theywere a childhood sweethearts and been in
a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship for six (6) years before getting married, their
marriage only lasted for few years and they both decided to be separated in fact, even
until the present.
12. Clearly, from the foregoing, the respondent failed to comply with the
essential marital obligations under Articles 68, 70 and 72 of the Family Code, more
particularly the following:
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live

together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
render mutual help and support.
Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the

support of the family. The expenses for such support and
other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community
property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or
fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or
absence of said income or fruits, such obligations shall be
satisfied from the separate properties.
Art. 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her

duties to the conjugal union or commits acts which tend to
bring danger, dishonor or injury to the other or to the family,
the aggrieved party may apply to the court for relief.
13. In their marriage relationship, respondent manifested inherent indications

of psychological incapacity, resulting into her incapability to comply with the obligations
of their matrimonial ties.
14. These are psychological in a nature, the same being grave or chronic and
habitual. The same appears to be incurable, manifesting itself in the conduct and
behavior of respondent in these instances, to wit:
Respondent:
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)

 extremely sensitive;
 small things can trigger intense reactions;
 once upset, you have trouble to calming down;

 unstable emotions and relationships and also wavering sense of who
you are;
 when in the throes of overwhelming emotions, unable to think straight

or stay grounded, may say hurtful things or act out in dangerous or
inappropriate ways to make someone guilty or ashamed afterwards;
 Self-harm like suicidal behavior.

Copy of the Psychological Report is hereto attached as Annex “B”.
15. The Petitioner failed to provide the respondent love, respect, help and
support. The petitioner was never responsible as the husband of the respondent.
16. On the other hand, respondent failed to understand the feelings and
sentiments of the petitioner, thereby, resulting into an unhealthy marriage environment.
17. Respondent incapacity existed prior to their marriage, although had

become manifest only thereafter. Her psychological impairment has rendered them
incapable of performing her marital and paternal duties or responsibilities.
18. The parties have not acquired or incurred any conjugal property or debt.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that after hearing, a JUDGMENT be rendered declaring null and void
the marriage between petitioner EDUARDO O. DAMAYO and respondent MA. KRISTINE
S. NARAJA on the ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent as provided for
under Article 36 of the Family Code.
FURTHER, other remedies are likewise prayed for.Respectfully submitted.
January 23, 2019. For Las Pinas City.
ATTY. CHRISTINE JANE A. RODRIGUEZ

Counsel for the Petitioner
BF Homes Village, Paranaque City,
Roll No. 258369
IBP No. 01231995
PTR No. 12365498
MCLE Compliance No. 1203456
Tel. Nos. 862-2366; 862-2367
[email protected]
Republic of the Philippines )
Las Piñas City ) s.s.
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING
I, EDUARDO O. DAMAYO, Filipino, of legal age and with address at 23 Gloria Diaz
St. BF Resort Las Pinas Cityafter having been duly sworn to in accordance with law
hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition and the allegations
contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
based on authentic records and documents;
3. I have not heretofore commence any action or proceeding involving the same
issue in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency;
4. To the best of my knowledge, no action or proceeding is pending in the

Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof or any tribunal
or agency;
5. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency, I undertake
to promptly inform the Honorable Court of the fact within five (5) days
therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of

January in 2019.
EDUARDO O. DAMAYO
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 25th day of January in 2019,
affiant exhibited to me his Driver’s License with No. 876543as proof of his identity
issued by the LTO Las Piñas City on January 22, 2018 valid until January 22, 2023.
Atty. Jhonrey V. Sayson

Notary Public
Address: Greenhills Bldg. Olivarez
Compound, Paranaque City
Roll No. 1234567
IBP No. 4567889
PTR No. 232345
MCLE Compliance No. 12587963
Commission No. 987654
Valid until Dec. 2020
Doc. No. 25;

Page No. 57;
Book No. 65;
Series of 2019.

Nullity of Marriage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nullity of Marriage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nullity of Marriage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

-versus- Civil Case No. _________

MA. KRISTINE S. NARAJA-DAMAYO,

2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of Sta.

3. Petitioner and respondent were childhood sweethearts; they were

6. After their six (6) years relationship as boyfriend-girlfriend, petitioner

Copy of the Marriage Certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”.

8. Although petitioner believed that he was a non-confrontational type of

9. On the other hand, because of the over-emotional and over-sensitive

Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live

Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the

Art. 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her

13. In their marriage relationship, respondent manifested inherent indications

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)

 small things can trigger intense reactions;

 once upset, you have trouble to calming down;

 when in the throes of overwhelming emotions, unable to think straight

 Self-harm like suicidal behavior.

17. Respondent incapacity existed prior to their marriage, although had

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

ATTY. CHRISTINE JANE A. RODRIGUEZ

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

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

4. To the best of my knowledge, no action or proceeding is pending in the

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of

Atty. Jhonrey V. Sayson

Doc. No. 25;

You might also like