REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

Mrs. W
Petitioner,

CA GR SP
NO. 100001
RTC Makati
B-00 Appealed Civil Case
No. 00-xx-xxx
---versus---
For: Declaration of Nullity
Of Marriage

Mr. H
Respondent.
x--------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

COMES NOW, herein petitioner, by the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of 555 T.

Una St., Legaspi Village, Makati City, where she may be served
with summons, orders and other legal processes of the Honorable
Court;

2. Private Respondent H is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and also a

resident of 555 T. Una St., Legaspi Village, Makati City,
represented in this case by Nazareno & Nazareno Law Office
through Atty. Renchie Nazareno, with the office address at Jai Me
Diez Bldg., 100 Kinger St., Legaspi Village, Makati City, where
summons, orders and other legal processes of the Honorable
Court may be served;

MATERIAL DATES SHOWING

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
 3. This originated as a Petition for the Declaration for Nullity of
Marriage with the Regional Trial Court (RTC Branch 58, Makati
City), wherein a decision for its dismissal dated on 11 November
2016.

4. Petitioner received on 25 November 2016, a copy of the

Regional Trial Court (RTC B-58 Makati City) decision dated March
11, 2009.

5. The undersigned counsel filed on 05 December 2016 by

registered mail this seasonable Petition For Review on Certiorari.
He paid the requisite docket fees, and other fees by postal money
orders attached to the said motion.

6. The fifteen (15) day period in which to file a Petition for Review
under Rule 42 shall expire on 10 December 2016 but without
waiting for the said expiry date, we now filed this instant petition.

7. This petition was not filed for delay. It is one which raises
substantial issues and thus, is worthy of consideration, the
Regional Trial Court having rendered the assailed decision in a
way that is not in accord with facts, law and applicable decisions of
the Supreme Court.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

8. That Petitioners H and W are husband and wife, having been

legally married on 14 October 2012 at Nuestra Seora De Gracia
Parish in Makati City, a copy of their certificate of marriage 1is
hereto attached for reference;

9. That in November 2015, W filed a petition for declaration of

nullity of marriage against H on the ground of psychological
incapacity, alleging, among others, that Respondent H's
drunkenness, coming home late at night and having several
women chat mates in the online application fezbook, negates his
1 Annex A

2
 being a good and loving husband, and thus, made him unable to
perform his marital obligations;

10. That the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 58, dismissed,
on 11 November 2016, the petition 2 for lack of merit, based mainly
on the following grounds:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of

merit in the absence of the gravity and incurability of
respondent H's acts that would prove his psychological
incapacity to perform the essential marital duties as husband
of the petitioner.

11. That herein Petitioner avers that her petition should have been
granted; that the screen shots of the personal messages of his
husband with his women chat mates clearly proves his marital
infidelity. Further, petitioner avers that respondent's frequent
drinking and coming home late shows that he has no time and care
for her anymore; and,

12. Hence, this Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Revised
Rules on Civil Procedure, praying for reconsideration.

SOLE ISSUE

Whether or not the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of

Makati under Hon. XYZ committed an error in its decision when it
ruled against petitioners petition for decree of nullity of marriage?

DISCUSSION

Based on Article 36 of the Family Code 3, psychological incapacity

is the condition of a person who does not have the mind, will and
heart for the performance of marriage obligation.

2 Hereto Attached as Annex B

3 Civil Code Volume I (Persons and Family relations) - Revised Edition, p. 424

3
 In a commentary, it was stated that two of the manifestations of
psychological incapacity is habitual alcoholism and marital
infidelity.4

It is clear from the facts of the case that respondent H is a drunkard

and always comes home late almost unconscious due to hangover
that he is unable to help W in the household.

Further, the act of having several women chat mates in fezbook

coupled with flirting, in which H does not show interest in W
anymore nor engage in sexual activities, are manifestations of
infidelity since he is unfaithful for his love for W.

It must be taken into consideration one of the rulings of the

Honorable Supreme Court in which it decided that each case
must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations but according to its own
facts. In regard to psychological incapacity as a ground for
annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on "all fours"
with another case. The trial judge must take pains in examining
the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as
possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial
court. 5(Emphasis supplied).

The trial court judge must have based his decision not just on other
precedents, for all relationships are distinct from each other, but
also from the facts of the case at bar.

The petitioner herein submits that isn't the acts/circumstances

averted enough to suffice incapacity of H as a marital partner?
What is the sense of marriage when the vows are not complied
with? These are the questions which the Honorable RTC failed to
appreciate in coming up with its decision to dismiss the original
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.

4 Dr. Gerardo C. Veloso, Questions and Answers on Psychological Incapacity as

Ground for Marriage Annulment Under Article 36 of the Family Code, 1988, pp.
13-25, cited in Civil Code Volume I (Persons and Family relations) - Revised
Edition (Paras), p.425

5 Republic of the Philippines v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001, 351
SCRA 425, 431.

4
 PRAYER

Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

the RTC decision dated 25 November 2016 be reversed and set
aside and that herein petitioners petition be GRANTED.

Other reliefs and just remedies are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, 05 December 2016.

ATTY. DENNIE VIEVE DP IDEA

Counsel for Petitioner
BME Building, Ayala Avenue,
Makati City
PTR no. xxxxx
IBP No. xxxxx
MCLE Compliance No. xx-xxxxxx

Copy furnished:

Nazareno & Nazareno Law Offices

Jai Me Diez Bldg., 100 Rench St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City 1229

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City

RTC Branch 58
Makati City

EXPLANATION

A copy of this Petition for Review was served via registered mail
and/or private courier due to time constraints and lack of
messenger to effect personal service.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

5
 I, DENNIE VIEVE DP IDEA, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the counsel of herein petitioner in the above-stated case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and
correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents
and records in my possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed
or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom
to this Honorable Court.

----------------------------------------------
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of __________ 200_

at _________________ affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate
No.____________________ issued on ________________ 200_ at
______________ City.

Doc. No. ;

Page No. ;

Book No. ;

Series of 20__.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

6
 MAKATI

Mrs. W
Petitioner,

Civil Case No. 00-xx-xxx

---versus---
For: Declaration of Nullity
Of Marriage

By: Hon. XYZ Jeje

Promulgated:
11 November 2016

Mr. H
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Before this Court is a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of

Marriage in Civil Case No. xxxxx filed on 13 November 2015 by herein
Petitioner.

The facts of the case are summarized below:

Petitioner and Respondent became husband and wife on 14

October 2012 through church wedding. After years of the celebration of
their marriage, some irreconcilable difference between the spouses were
revealed which led to the filing of herein petitioner the present civil
action.

Petitioner seeks for the nullification of her marriage with Mr. H, on

the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code, asserting that H's drunkenness, coming home late at night and
refusal to have sexual encounters with her are manifestations of the
latter's incapacity to perform the essential marital duties. We find the
modified the allegations of Petitioner to be sufficient as to warrant the
decree for nullity of her marriage with his husband on the ground of
psychological incapacity.

Upon scrutiny of the evidence and testimonies submitted in this

Court, we are of the opinion that petitioners marriage with his husband

7
should be preserved. That we should always be reminded of the sanctity
of marital union and of the family, and we cannot let petitioners
satisfaction to ruin their marriage.

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the marriage

between Mrs. W and Mr. H is hereby declared null and void, pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code.

SO ORDERED.

8
9