REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Parañaque City
Branch 194

CHRISTINE SANGALANG
GENEROSO,
Petitioner,

-versus- Civil Case No. 2016-129

For: Annulment of Marriage
JOHN PAA DUMAYAG,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

Petitioner, CHRISTINE SANGALANG GENEROSO, by and through

undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

1. This is a Civil Action for Annulment of Marriage against herein

respondent.

WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO COMPROMISE

2. Petitioner is willing to enter into compromise on matters not otherwise

prohibited by law in connection with this Petition.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. The petitioner and the respondent first met each other online,
sometime mid-year of 2015. The petitioner was only 24 years old then, while
the respondent is eight years older or 32 years old.

4. The parties instantly became good friends. They had good

conversation because they are both engaged in the same career industry.

5. Moreover, given the fact that they just knew each other for relatively
short period of time, the respondent was really open about his life to the
petitioner.

Page 1 of 6
 6. Everything happened so fast between the parties. From merely
meeting each other, and just having communicated through online calls and
messages, the respondent immediately confided his love for the petitioner.

7. In fact, just after weeks of constant communication or on September

2015, the petitioner was surprised when the respondent unexpectedly proposed
to marry her.

8. The respondent told that he wanted to marry the petitioner

immediately, if possible, on December 2015. The respondent told the petitioner
that his family wanted him to have his own family considering his age, so that
he can eventually give them a grandchild.

9. The petitioner refused the said proposal. She knew that aside from the
fact that she was still very young, and have plans and dreams yet to be pursued,
she still does not know the respondent well.

10. But the respondent was very insistent. He said that he will give the
petitioner time to think about it, especially that his older sibling will get married
on December of the same year. Thus, if ever, the petitioner and the respondent’s
marriage will be moved to a latter date to give way to his sibling’s marriage.

11. However, it did not take long before the petitioner decide. On late
November 2015, the petitioner talked to the respondent and reiterated her
decision to turn down the marriage proposal citing her age, dreams, and family
as the primary reasons.

12. Unfortunately, the respondent did not take the refusal very well. He
became mad to the petitioner, and refused to cancel the wedding. According to
him, it is hard to call the wedding off especially that everything was already
planned and “fixed”. He cited that all his family members, close friends and
relatives already booked their flight to arrive in Manila on January to attend
their wedding.

13. In fact, according to the respondent, he had already hired a “marriage

consultant” to take care of the application for the marriage license and all the
other requirements for the wedding, including the solemnizing officer.

14. Burdened by her conscience and guilt for all the alleged expenses,
efforts, and trouble made, the petitioner felt she cannot do anything but agree
to the marriage proposal of the respondent.

15. Thus, on January 16, 2016, the respondent arrived here in the
Philippines, which also marked the first time that he and the petitioner
personally met.

16. It was also the first that time the petitioner was able to introduce the
respondent to her family, and the immediate plan to get married.
2 | Page
 17. As expected, upon learning of the said wedding plan, the petitioner’s
family was also shocked. They were worried about her rash, and thoughtless
decision, especially that almost all of their family members they been through
with a long term relationships before they get married. They also warned the
petitioner that maybe she was just carried away by the moment, and made her
realize the possible consequences of her decision.

18. Moreover, the petitioner’s family qualms not only that they do not
even know, much less, personally met, the respondent, but also the fact that
they sensed something was wrong with him, particularly as he was aloof with
them.

19. It was only after a serious talk with her parents that the petitioner
finally realized her careless, heedless and immature decision to marry at a very
young age of twenty four (24). So, she talked to the respondent to supposedly
back-out of the wedding.

20. However, when the petitioner was about to say her plan to back-out,
the respondent immediately intervened, talked, and showed to her the marriage
license and other marriage requirements that were ready and set.

21. Curious, the petitioner asked the respondent on how he was able to
fill-out and eventually secure the required marriage license and other
documentary requirements by law, knowing that she did not apply, fill-out or
signed anything, much less, asked for her consent for the same, the latter told
her that he has many “connections” who can facilitate him in securing the
requirements.

22. Worse, upon the issuance of the copy of the requirements, it was
discovered by the petitioner that her signature in marriage license application
and that of her parents in the parental advice were falsified, as different
signatures were appearing thereon, noticeably different compared to their
correct and true signatures.

23. For that reason, the petitioner had more reason to call-off the
wedding. She was in disbelief to know that the respondent could do such acts
(falsification). Thus, the petitioner did not just called-off the wedding, but also
wanted to break up with him.

24. However, the respondent again refused. But this time he reacted
violently. He reminded the petitioner that he will not hesitate to use his
“connections” to get what he want. He entreated the possible humiliation that
he could get plus the expenses that were already made for the wedding plan.

25. Worse, the respondent threatened the petitioner, telling her that the
wedding should proceed after all the things that he have done. Else, he will “get
back” at her and her family.
3 | Page
 26. Hence, the petitioner felt obligated or “trapped”, and that her hands
are tied to comply and marry the respondent. Thus, the wedding ensued last
January 28, 2016.

27. Otherwise stated, the petitioner closed her eyes in marrying the
respondent, as she was forced to marry the respondent against her will for the
fear of her and her family’s life.

28. After marriage, things went from bad to worse. As few weeks
passed-by, living together became more suffocating and depressing. The
petitioner was not happy at all. The respondent disrespects her, and arguments
and physical fights occur more often than not.

29. As such, the petitioner has long decided to file this petition, or at
least live away from the respondent. But the latter have repeatedly rejected the
idea and reacted violently. In fact, every time the petitioner tries to leave, the
respondent would curse and physically harm her.

30. Further, the respondent had threatened her that if she will insist on
leaving him, he will hunt the petitioner down and will make sure that her and
her family’s life more miserable.

31. The petitioner remained lipped-tight despite the bad treatment from
the respondent, but she was overwhelmed by her fears knowing what the latter
could do considering his “connections” and violent tendencies.

32. Fortunately, the respondent left the petitioner to work abroad this
April 2016. As such, it is only then that the petitioner had opportunity to leave
their house, and eventually engage the services of a lawyer in order to hopefully
annul the marriage, and to eventually get her life back.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

33. Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court to hear, try, and decide the case.

34. Petitioner and respondent were married on January 28, 2016.

35. Petitioner’s and respondent’s union did not produce a child.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

17. Whether or not the marriage of petitioner and respondent may be

annulled on the ground of vitiated consent of the petitioner.

LIST OF EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED

DURING TRIAL

4 | Page
 22. Petitioner intends to present as evidence the following:

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS

“A” Marriage certificate of the petitioner and the
respondent
“B” Judicial Affidavit of the petitioner

23. Petitioner reserves the right to present other real or documentary

evidence during the course of the trial.

NAMES OF WITNESSES AND

SUMMARY OF THEIR TESTIMONIES

15. CHRISTINE SANGALANG GENEROSO - To testify on the

circumstances surrounding her marriage with the respondent; identification of
documents; and other matters related thereto.

16. Petitioner reserves the right to present additional witnesses during

the course of the trial.

APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

17. Pertinent provisions of the Family Code, particularly on Article 2 par

2, and Article 45 paragraph 4.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLEADINGS

18. Petitioner proposes no amendments to the Petition filed before this

Honorable Court.

AVAILABLE DATES FOR TRIAL

19. Plaintiff and her witnesses are available for trial as may be agreed
upon by the parties or on any date convenient to this Honorable Court.

Respectfully submitted.
Pasig City for Paranaque City, 2 November 2017.

5 | Page
 ATTY. LIFRENDO M. GONZALES
8th Floor, Revolving Tower, Brgy. San Nicolas
Pasig City, 1600 Metro Manila, Philippines
Tel. no. 09071523001
Roll No. 56526
IBP No. 1017274/ 12 January 2017
PTR No. 0606633 / Paranaque City / 6 January 2017
MCLE No. V – 0018965, 04/19/2016 until 04/14/2019

Copy furnished:

Office of the City Prosecutor

6th Floor, Hall of Justice
Paranaque City, Metro Manila, Philippines

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City, Metro Manila Philippines

EXPLANATION

Copies of the Pre-Trial Brief was served by private courier due to time
and distance between offices, and for lack of the undersigned’s staff who can
serve the same in person.

ATTY. LIFRENDO M. GONZALES

6 | Page