PLEADING - Nullity of Marriage

Republic of the Philippines
8th Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Branch 46
Bulwagan ng Katarungan
Magsaysay Blvd.
Tacloban City, Leyte
-o0o-
RYAN COOPER SAN ANDRES

Petitioner,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO.: 201039947

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY
OF MARRIAGE
ANNE CRUZ-SAN ANDRES

Respondent,
x--------------------------------------------x
PETITION
COMES NOW, the Petitioner through the undersigned counsel to this

most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY AVERS THAT:
1. He is a Filipino citizen, of legal age, with capacity to sue and be
sued, married to herein respondent, and a resident of Brgy 5, Sto.
Nino St., Ermita, Manila, Philippines, at which address petitioner
may be served with summons and other court processes;
2. Respondent is likewise a Filipino citizen, of legal age, with

capacity to sue and be sued, married to herein petitioner and with
address of Brgy. 5-A, Senator Enage St., Tacloban City,
Philippines, at which address petitioner may be served with
summons and other court processes;
3. Petitioner and respondent first met during a client meeting last

July 1998. That after said meeting, they started to go out for a date
and get to know each other well and became sweethearts;
4. After a year of dating, herein respondent was fired at work due to
incompetent tardiness towards her work. Having no other place to
stay, the couple decided to live together without the benefit of
marriage. The respondent lived in the house of the petitioner
together with the family of the latter.
5. During the said cohabitation, petitioner’s family started to notice

that petitioner and respondent often argue over petty matters.
They would shout at each other and petitioner would always be
the one to recoil. Petitioner expected the respondent to give in
during fights but respondent even gets angrier, not wanting to
lower her voice;
6. Petitioner also discovered that respondent is the dominant and

controlling type. She wanted things her way and would be very
angry when her wants are not granted. Petitioner realized that he
and respondent are incompatible to each other. He already wanted
to separate from her but he could not do so because she was
already two months pregnant with their child;
7. To legitimize their child before birth, they decided to get married.

They subsequently had their marriage on January 05, 2001 at
Manila City Hall, Arroceros St., Ermita, Manila and was
solemnized by Honorable Judge Godofredo S. Quiambao (Exhibit
1);
8. The couple continued to stay at the petitioner’s house in Brgy 5,

Sto. Nino St., Ermita, Manila, Philippines;
9. The petitioner was the breadwinner of the family;
10. During their marriage, petitioner found out that respondent was a
very jealous and suspicious woman. Whenever petitioner arrived
home from his work, respondent would check his belongings,
especially his mobile phone, for any evidence of a probable
infidelity on his part. She suspected him of having an illicit affair.
While petitioner admitted that he had flings before with whom he
has now casual interaction as friends; he no longer engaged in
such flings after his wedding with the respondent. However,
respondent did not believe the petitioner and she grew all the
more suspicious of his actions, accusing him of infidelity even if
she has no concrete basis at all;
11. Despite the fact that their marital relationship was already in a
state of total disorder as they continue to engage in heated
argument and fights, their child, Ronnie, was born (Exhibit 2);
12. Later during the marriage, petitioner was reassigned in Cebu City
for work;
13. Since then, respondent started to show signs of immaturity and

irresponsibility as a wife and a mother since she preferred to
spend more time with her peers and friends on whom she
squandered the money that the petitioner give for household
expenses and was not able to attend to their toddler son who was
then two years old;
14. Petitioner always receive a call from his mother, Donabel Cooper-
San Andres, complaining about the irresponsibility of his wife as a
mother and not being able to take care of their child. Instead, it is
her, petitioner’s mother, who watch over the child and has a much
closer affection to the child than the respondent;
15. Being ashamed of the usual complaint of here mother, petitioner

hired a nanny who can take good care of their son while the
respondent continued her immaturity as she frequently go out
with her barkada and often times come home drunk late at night;
16. She never attempted to look for a job to help in the expenses
instead, she depended on herein petitioner for aid and assistance.
She was never honest with her husband in regard to their finances,
resulting in frequent quarrels between them;
17. Their relationship became worse as their incompatibilities began

to be more evident. They engaged all the more in heated
arguments and fights even at the presence of his parents and
siblings. Petitioner was unable to sleep due to the extended
quarrels with the respondent and significantly affected his
performance in work. Petitioner lacks peace of mind and
concentration he needed for his work;
18. When he comes home to Ermita, Manila every vacation or

holiday, he always see to it that he spends quality time with his
family especially his son. Sometimes when they go shopping for
their son they engaged in nonsensical argument, he is pestered by
the angry respondent who continually nagged him about
spending the money for useless toys and other stuff;
19. Respondent was never caring and thoughtful towards him, she
failed to look after petitioner’s welfare. She was cold and apathetic
towards his concerns. Respondent could not even prepare a meal
for the petitioner and would require him to prepare his own meal.
Moreover, respondent continued to be suspicious of him,
constantly checking his belongings upon arrival from work
instead of showing care and comfort after a long hour of travel
from Cebu City to Manila. Respondent was selfish, jealous and
indifferent. Respondent never cared for the petitioner and his
needs.
20. Knowing that the petitioner’s family disapprove of her, in 2005,

respondent decided to move to her parent’s house in Tacloban
City, Leyte leaving their son with the petitioner’s parents as the
child refuses to come along.
21. She moved to Tacloban City, Leyte for good and not even once
tried to contact herein petitioner even to ask about the welfare of
their son;
22. Petitioner even tried to fetch her from Leyte to bring her back to
Manila because he still wants his son to grow up with a complete
family but the respondent refused;
23. She continued to ask support from her husband which the latter
cannot refuse as a responsible husband and that he believed that
they would still reconcile and give their marriage another chance;
24. He sends support to his wife via money remittances for her
monthly expenses in the amount of Php 7,000.00 per transaction
(Exhibit 3);
25. It is only when herein petitioner found out that the respondent
refused to come home and abandoned them for good because she
complained to her parents that she was maltreated and is
physically abused by the petitioner’s parents without a concrete
evidence at all;
26. It is with the said false accusation when petitioner realized that
their relationship is already beyond repair. Petitioner did
everything he could to save his marriage with the respondent,
however, their incompatibility along with respondent’s
pervasively flawed character had made it impossible to redeem
the relationship. It was in this premise that petitioner finally
decided to separate from the respondent; hence the filing of this
nullity of marriage;
27. It has been fourteen years already and respondent continued to

neglect her duties as a wife and as a mother up to this date;
28. Petitioner then sought the assistance of Dr. Marilyn Varona, a

psychiatrist in Divine Word Hospital, to conduct a psychiatric and
psychological examinations on the petitioner and the respondent;
29. After a thorough analysis of the data gathered from the

interviews on the petitioner, it is revealed that the eventual
shattering of the marital relations between them is brought forth
by the psychological incapacitation of the respondent. The
respondent is governed by a debilitating psychological conditions,
which made her incompetent to be actively part of a relationship
where mutuality is founded and required. Her attitude and
behavior is all self-centered in nature that her strivings are largely
focused to cater her pathological needs and demands;
30. The reported behavioral manifestations of the respondent satisfies

the criteria of a “PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE PERSONALITY
DISORDER COMORBID ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY
DISORDER” as well as “HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY
DISORDER WITH UNDERLYING ANTISOCIAL
FEATURES”. These personality disorders were concluded to be
present prior to the marriage, permanent, incurable and caused
the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential obligations of marriage (Exhibit 4);
31. Respondent is regarded as an egocentric and self-centered person

who upholds a sense of entitlement. This being the case, she only
thinks of herself and anything that is in favor of her;
32. Respondent has a striking sense of entitlement. She is demanding

of immediate compliance to her desires and would want petitioner
to meet her expectations. She always wanted to feel being treated
in a way where she plays the upper hand in the relationship and
would still insist on what she wants even if it is already
impractical. She always wanted the attention of the petitioner. She
demands for his time and money and requires that she be
immediately appeased though she knew that it impossible to do
so. If her wishes are not heeded, she easily bombards the
petitioner with unnecessary and pointless naggings that are not
helpful in any way;
33. That the above-mentioned facts demonstrate respondent’s

psychological incapacity to comply with the essential obligations
of marriage. Under Article 36 of the Family Code, such
psychological incapacity entitles the petitioner to an annulment of
marriage and for a consequent declaration of the nullity of
marriage.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed
for of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered and declare the
marriage of herein petitioner with the respondent null and void due to
psychological incapacity of the latter to fulfill her marital obligations and
ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Ermita, Manila City keeping the
record of such marriage to cancel the said marriage from the book of
marriages and order said marriage to be no further legal effect.
Petitioner likewise prays for costs and for such other and further
relief as this honorable court may deem just and equitable in the premises.
Tacloban City, Leyte, December 20, 2019.
ATTY. KENNETH ABUDA

Counsel for the Petitioner
Mananaggol Law Office
Door 5, Salinas Bldg., Burgos St., Tacloban City
Attys Roll No. 65867/May 25, 2016
PTR No.: 7565965; 01-03-2017
IBP No.: 015134-LEYTE CHAPTER
MCLE COMPLIANCE No.: W- 0039947/09-18-2019
Phone Numbers: (053)-832-9075/0917-310-3972
Email: keannamarieabuda@gmail.com
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, RYAN COOPER SAN ANDRES, Filipino, of legal age, married
and a resident of Brgy 5, Sto. Nino St., Ermita, Manila, Philippines, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
state that:
1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition;
3. I have read all the allegations therein which are true and correct
based on my personal knowledge and authentic documents;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving
the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency;
5. I further certify that to the best of my knowledge, there is no
pending action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I shall
undertake to inform the Honorable Court of this fact within five
(5) days therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 20th
day of December 2019 in Tacloban City, Leyte.
RYAN COOPER SAN ANDRES

Petitioner-Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 20 th day of December, 2019

in Tacloban City, Leyte with Driver’s License No. H0218113989, valid until
January 05, 2021 and I hereby certify that I personally examined the affiant
herein and that I am fully satisfied that she voluntarily executed the
foregoing petition and she understood all the allegations herein.
Page No. ; Notary Public

Doc. No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2019.

PLEADING - Nullity of Marriage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLEADING - Nullity of Marriage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

PLEADING - Nullity of Marriage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

8th Judicial Region

RYAN COOPER SAN ANDRES

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO.: 201039947

ANNE CRUZ-SAN ANDRES

COMES NOW, the Petitioner through the undersigned counsel to this

2. Respondent is likewise a Filipino citizen, of legal age, with

3. Petitioner and respondent first met during a client meeting last

5. During the said cohabitation, petitioner’s family started to notice

6. Petitioner also discovered that respondent is the dominant and

7. To legitimize their child before birth, they decided to get married.

8. The couple continued to stay at the petitioner’s house in Brgy 5,

9. The petitioner was the breadwinner of the family;

13. Since then, respondent started to show signs of immaturity and

15. Being ashamed of the usual complaint of here mother, petitioner

17. Their relationship became worse as their incompatibilities began

18. When he comes home to Ermita, Manila every vacation or

20. Knowing that the petitioner’s family disapprove of her, in 2005,

27. It has been fourteen years already and respondent continued to

28. Petitioner then sought the assistance of Dr. Marilyn Varona, a

29. After a thorough analysis of the data gathered from the

30. The reported behavioral manifestations of the respondent satisfies

31. Respondent is regarded as an egocentric and self-centered person

32. Respondent has a striking sense of entitlement. She is demanding

33. That the above-mentioned facts demonstrate respondent’s

ATTY. KENNETH ABUDA

RYAN COOPER SAN ANDRES

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 20 th day of December, 2019

Page No. ; Notary Public

You might also like