REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

7TH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
CEBU CITY
BRANCH ____

MARIE JEAN LABRA RAFOLS,

Plaintiff,

--- versus --- Civil Case No. ________________

For : For Declaration of Nullity of

Marriage

GLAD ADOR WILFRED E. RAFOLS

Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x

PETITION

COMES NOW, Petitioner, MARIE JEAN LABRA RAFOLS, by

undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers
and states that:

PARTIES

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of 806 V. Rama

Avenue, Cebu City. She may be served with summons, notices and
processes of this Honorable Court at the undersigned counsel’s office
address;

2. Petitioner is currently working as an Overseas Filipino Worker in

Dubai;

3. The respondent is a Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of V.Rama,

Cebu City, where he may be served with summons for the instant
case.

CAUSE OF ACTION

4. Petitioner and respondent knew each other during their childhood

days since they were living in the same barangay in Cebu City.
Nevertheless, even if they are neighbors they rarely meet each other
during their childhood days as the petitioner often times stays in the

1
 house. There were sometimes, during fiesta occasions in their
barangay, when petitioner and respondent happened to see each other
and both exchanged mutual greetings.

5. They came to know more of each other where they developed into
friends when the petitioner was requested by respondent’s sister, Gay
Rafols to be one of the campaign staffs of respondent’s father, Engr.
Wilfredo Rafols, who is running for senatorial election. As both of
them were tasked to help and coordinate in the election campaign of
the respondent’s father, they have more opportunity of knowing each
other and as a result they found themselves comfortable with each
other and eventually settled themselves as lovers.

6. Like any other new relationship, it was a good start for them as
couples. They shared sweet and memorable moments as the
respondent at first highly regarded the petitioner with great care,
attention and concern. However, when their relationship developed
and was already in its three years, the petitioner observes some glaring
changes in the behavior of the respondent that is completely different
during the early days of their relationship. She likewise noticed that
the respondent rarely spends time to her and have countless alibis to
dissociate himself in memorable occasions such as anniversaries,
birthdays and other important events.

7. It was not long enough when petitioner discovered that the respondent
was having an affair with another woman. Without any hesitation,
petitioner confronted the respondent and eventually decided to finally
end up their relationship. However, due to the insistence of the
respondent, petitioner was constrained to give another chance for him
to mend his ways and make good of their relationship. But such was
just a waste when the petitioner again learned that respondent was
again involved in an affair with another woman different from the
previous one. Thus, their relationship became rough and was
switching back and forth.

8. Despite series of verbal tussle when petitioner confronts the

respondent of his unfaithfulness, she would succumb to forgiving the
respondent and save their relationship. Thus for one final chance, she
gambled hoping that this time their relationship might work out and
the respondent might be truthful to his promises.

9. True enough petitioner never heard that respondent was involved with
another woman for a stint period of time after she had given him
another chance. Until respondent intimated to her about his plans of
taking the BAR examinations after he graduated law course and he
proposed to her if he would agree to have a secret marriage prior to
taking the BAR. In justifying the proposal of secret marriage,
respondent told the petitioner that it is not a good idea to have their

2
 marriage publicly as his father did not have any idea about their
relationship. He is also dubious if he could secure a favorable
response and consent from his father. Petitioner, at first, declined to
the proposal of secret marriage as she was too young at that time,
being 21 years old with more plans in the future, however, respondent
employed craft and impregnated her and later told her that he did so
just to make sure that petitioner would not leave him and find another
man. It was when the petitioner was already pregnant when Gay, the
sister of respondent, helped in convincing her to go with secret
marriage and assured her that she would be the one to explain the
same to their father. Thus, petitioner finally agreed to the proposal of
secret marriage through civil wedding due to the pressure and
unsolicited advices from her peers and relatives of the respondent.

10.Eventually, the marriage was held on August 24, 1996 at Branch 6, of

the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu City and was solemnized by Judge
Antonio F. Paraguya.

Attached as Annex “A” hereof is a copy of the Certificate of Marriage of

the parties.

11.After their marriage, respondent flew to Manila and stayed there for
about six months to review and prepare for the BAR examination for
that year. On the other hand, petitioner was left behind and stayed at
her parents’ house.

12. When the petitioner was already six months pregnant respondent’s
sister together with her mother offered the petitioner to stay in another
house also owned by respondent’s parents. They persuaded the
petitioner not to stay in the house where they were staying because
respondent’s father had no idea about her and their existing
relationship with respondent, more so, about her pregnancy and their
marriage. They suggested that she would better off stay in the other
house for the reason that respondent’s father was so strict and
unwelcoming.

13.Though petitioner agreed to what they proposed but it remains against

her will and confronts the respondent why the latter could not defend
her and their child to his father. However, despite insistence
respondent remained silent to stand up and fight for her. Thus, it
caused sleepless night, serious anxiety and unbearable stress to the
petitioner considering that she is expected to deliver her baby through
cesarean method. The ordeal she suffered for their relationship and
their marriage continued to be hidden in the knowledge of the
respondent’s father. The ordeal of the petitioner continued for more
months until it came to the knowledge of her parents who forced her

3
 to live the other house of respondent’s parents and opted to live in her
parents house.

14.Days passed after she stayed in the house of her parents, petitioner
heard rumors spread by the family of the respondent that she was into
an illicit relationship with another man. This enraged the petitioner
that resulted in verbal tussle with her and the respondent because the
respondent opted to believe the fabricated stories against her made by
her family even if he was able to verify the same as untrue.

15.When she gave birth, she was alone in the hospital since the
respondent was already in Manila to take the BAR examination. On
March 07, 1997, petitioner delivered her child named Alexis Marie
Labra Rafols. But the respondent showed lack of concern for their
baby. There as even a time when the petitioner requested the
respondent to watch their child as she have some errands to do,
however, the respondent being incapable to nurture his child, hires a
baby sitter instead. He was not able to give even a single centavo for
the support of their child needs. The petitioner was only dependent on
the support given to her by her parents. Even to visit them in her
parents the respondent did occasional after their child was born.

Attached as Annex “B” hereof is a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of

Alexis Marie Labra Rafols.

16. After respondent’s BAR examination, he came back to Cebu City and
stayed with his family. Petitioner’s father even persuaded the
respondent to build a house in the vacant portion of the lot owned by
the petitioner’s parents, so they could live together as husband and
wife. But respondent was quick to turn down the offer. Since the
marriage of the petitioner and respondent, they were never living
together as husband and house in one conjugal home.

17. The respondent was always following the decisions of his family and
could not make up his own. He did not want to detach from his
family. He could not even talk about his point of among his siblings.
Petitioner even asked the respondent to find a job, but he declined and
he asseverated that his parents could afford and sustain his needs and
did not permit him to work. There came a time when the respondent
was asked by his father to run as City councilor in the South District
of Cebu City which the respondent heeded and filed his certificate of
candidacy. The petitioner was appalled to learn after she was able to
obtain a copy of the certificate of candidacy of the respondent that he
filled out in the marital status box that he was “single”. This greatly
humiliates and insults the petitioner, as she was never acknowledged
as a wife by the respondent nay had paid respect to the sacredness of
their marriage. Respondent only told the petitioner that he feared that
his father might know about their marriage and he might be thrown
out of the family.

4
 18. Their relationship became worst and chaotic one. One that is not
worthy to preserve. Thus, petitioner stayed out and avoided the
respondent. Not long enough when she learned that respondent was
already having a relationship with another woman.

19.When the child of the petitioner was already a grade six pupil,
petitioner then decided to finally seek greener pasture and work
abroad to sustain the needs of her child, as she could not expect any
support from the irresponsible respondent especially that the
respondent is now dealing with another woman.

20.Respondent was selfish and indifferent. Respondent never cared for

the petitioner and the needs of their child. Thus, when she worked
abroad, petitioner left her child in the temporary custody and care of
her parents while working abroad.

Attached is Annex “C” is a copy of the passport of the Petitioner.

21.Petitioner believes that their relationship is already beyond repair.

Petitioner did everything she could to save her marriage with the
respondent, however, their incompatibility along with respondent’s
pervasively flawed character had made it impossible to redeem the
relationship. Hence the filing of this annulment case.

22.The parties do not own any properties, whether real or personal.

23.The petitioner has engaged the services of the Law Offices of

Piramide, Famor Jr., Patiño, Medalle & Piramide through the
undersigned counsel, for the preparation, filing and prosecution of the
instant case.

24.The petitioner had engaged the services of Dr. Anna Kathrina

Oaminal-Watin, Clinical Psychologist, for the determination of
psychological evaluation of both parties, who will be presented as an
expert witness in support of the instant petition.

Attached is Annex “D to D-9” is the Judicial Affidavit of Dr. Kathrina

Oaminal-Watin, Clinical Psychologist.

25.The psychological tests administered by Dr. Anna Kathrina Oaminal-

Watin, Clinical Psychologist on the petitioner were: Intake
Interview;Clinical Interview, Valid and reliable psychological tests,
Interview with Alexis Marie Rafols, Genogram, Family of Origin
Interview, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fifth Edition (DSM-5).

Attached is Annex “E to E-10” is the Judicial Affidavit of Dr. Kathrina

Oaminal-Watin, Clinical Psychologist.

5
26.Based on the result of the psychological tests and interview on the
petitioner and petitioner’s daughter, who was able to witness some of
the events that transpired. Although, she was not able to interview the
respondent in this case but efforts were made to contact him.
However, as a procedure in psychological assessment, when the
subject is not available for an interview, an informant who is
necessarily a significant person of the subject maybe interviewed
utilizing the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE).
This instrument is evaluated and valid and reliable tool for standards
of the World Health Organization.

27.The findings of Dr. Watin, as culled from the psychological report,

APC Case No: 2018C23, reveals that respondent, Mr. Glad Ador
Wilfred Rafols is suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder
based on the Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders Fifth
Edition (DSM-5). This disorder is grave and serious, incurable and
traceable to respondent’s childhood. DSM-5 defines Dependent
Personality Disorder as a pervasive pattern of submissive and clinging
behavior related to an excessive need to be taken cared of.

28.Based on DSM V General Diagnostic Criteria for Personality

Disorder, a person with Dependent Personality Disorder possesses
difficulty making everyday decisions without seeking the reassurance
and advice from others. They need others to assume responsibility for
most major areas of their life such as finding work, taking care of
child, providing the needs of their family. They find it difficult to
express disagreement with others because of fear of losing the support
or approval. Individuals who suffer from this disorder has difficulty
initiating projects or doing things on their own because of lack of self-
confidence in judgment or abilities rather than lack of motivation of
energy. They may do behaviors that are unpleasant to gain nurturance
or support. A person with Dependent Personality Disorder feels
uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of exaggerated fears of
being unable to take care of themselves. When their close relationship
ends, they tend to seek another relationship urgently as a source of
care and support. They experience preoccupation with fears of being
left to take care of himself or herself.

29.Dr. Watin describes the respondent as a person who has this kind of
Psychological Disorder as there are overt manifestations he exhibited.
Respondent’s difficulty in making decisions, of being responsible of
the decision he made, his difficulty in expressing disagreement
towards others. He went to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and
support from others and he urgently seeks another relationship as a
source of care and support when a close relationship ends.

6
30. Dr. Watin illustrated specific examples of the respondent’s
Dependent Personality Disorder, in this wise, to wit:

“Mr. Glad Ador Wilfred Rafols exhibits symptoms of

Dependent Personality Disorder as evidenced by his behaviors.
He has difficulty in making everyday decisions because he
keeps on following the decisions, commands, and requests of
his parents and siblings. During their marriage, Mr. Rafols did
not share a house with his wife and daughter because he
preferred to live with his parents and siblings.

He manifested behavior of difficulty of being responsible

in making everyday decisions. He needed excessive amount of
advice and reassurance from others. He also showed consistent
need of others to assume responsibility for most major areas of
his life. It was the respondent’s sister who decided to let his
wife live near him. He left the petitioner alone during
pregnancy, childbirth, and during childhood of their daughter.
He left the petitioner to take care of herself throughout the
years of their marriage. The petitioner took his role as a father
to their child. The petitioner was the one supporting for the
emotional and financial needs of their child. An instance
wherein he was asked to watch over their child, he did not do
so. He called a babysitter for that.

He exhibited difficulty expressing disagreement towards

his parents, sister, and brothers. During arguments with his
family, he could not express what he really wanted. Both his
wife and his daughter disclosed that he could not stand for
himself. When his daughter and his mother had an argument, it
came to the point that his mother sent his daughter out. To
avoid further arguments, he let his daughter live away from
them while he stayed with his mother.

He went to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and

support from others. During their early relationship, he
impregnated the petitioner to make sure that he won’t be left
behind since he would be away for a couple of months. He
admitted it to the petitioner that he did it purposely because he
was afraid that the petitioner might leave him. Also, he kept on
following his father’s requests to the point of not fulfilling his
obligation as a husband and a father. He did not disclose his
marriage to his father. He even lied to the public on his marital
status for his father not to find out.

He urgently seeks another relationship as a source of

care and support when a close relationship ends. During his
early unstable relationship with the petitioner, when they broke
up, the petitioner would learn that he was in another

7
 relationship. It happened many times. Every time they end their
relationship, he would always find a new one. The petitioner
also said that he had numerous relationships while he was in
college. Even on their marriage, he still exposed infidelity
towards the petitioner.”

31.Dr. Watin added that the psychological incapacitation of the

respondent affects the ability of the respondent to perform his marital
obligation to the petitioner for the following reasons:

“Because of his disorder, respondent is unable to

perform his marital obligations to the petitioner. His failure to
take care of his wife and daughter indicates his lack of
understanding of the essential obligations of marriage. His
excessive need for approval is an indication of immaturity and
lack of an effective sense of emotional judgment and
responsibility.

Individuals with dependent personality disorder are often

characterized by pessimism and self-doubt, tend to belittle their
abilities and assets. They take criticism and disapproval as
proof of their worthless and lose faith in themselves. They may
seek overprotection and dominance from others. The
respondent’s immaturity, behavioral disorder virtually
destroyed the purity and sanctity of marriage.

His personality traits are inflexible and maladaptive and

cause either subjective distress or inconsiderable impairment in
his life to carry out the task of daily living; hence, such disorder
is considered grave and serious. Enduring patterns of inner
experience and behavior that differs markedly from what is
expected in the person’s culture. The pattern is inflexible and
pervasive across a range of personal and social situation,
pattern causes distress impairment, pattern is stable and of
long duration and onset that can be travelled back to
adolescence or early childhood.

His failure to love and take care of his wife is not just a
matter of refusal on the part of the respondent. Because his
disorder, his psyche makes him incapable of complying with
these essential marital obligations. With the lack of an effective
sense of emotional judgment and stability, and the fundamental
lack of loyalty to persons or sense of moral values, it would be
very difficult on his part to function as a husband and father.”

32.According to Dr. Watin, the respondent’s disorder is traceable to

childhood. Pathogenis family patterns, issues with parents-these could
cause so much distress to a child, hence, the development of such
disorder. Respondent showed early signs of dependency towards his

8
 parents and siblings. He always followed what his parents wanted him
to do. He could not even go against his siblings even if he did not
want what he was doing. He showed excessive dependency towards
his mother who tolerated his behavior. The strictness of his father
created fear of going against him even to the point of lying that he was
already married. Psychoanalytic theory asserts that an intimate,
emotional relationship between a child and his parents is essential to
healthy personality development. In the case of the respondent, his
father’s behavior towards him created a distant relationship between
the two at an early age. His mother failed to reprimand him and even
conspired of his wrongdoings.

33.The reported behavioral manifestations of psychological incapacity of

the respondent is characterized by “GRAVITY, JURIDICAL
ANTECEDENCE AND INCURABILITY”. This personality
disorder caused the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

34.Dr. Watin, thus, recommends that the marriage between the parties be
declared null and void based on the established psychological
incapacity of the respondent.

35. Likewise, petitioner needed to pursue this instant case to end her
ordeal and sufferings on her marriage brought about by the
respondent’s very serious personality problems. Respondent was
pursuing acts that destroyed the moral fabrics of their union and
family existence. Worse, he had no remorse with his acts as shown in
his absence of even a slight realization of their ill consequences.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

the marriage between the petitioner and respondent be declared null and void
from the beginning under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, due to
the respondents psychological incapacity to comply with his essential
marital obligations.

Petitioner also prays for other reliefs as may be deemed just and
equitable in the premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

August 03, 2018. Cebu City, Philippines.

THE LAW OFFICES OF PIRAMIDE FAMOR JR, PATIÑO

MEDALLE & PIRAMIDE
Suite 222 C.S. Ladia Bldg., P. Del Rosario St.,
cor. Junquera St., Cebu City

9
 Tel No. (032) 254-0453

By:

JURIL B. PATIÑO
Counsel of the Petitioner
Roll of Attorney No. 63966 April 27,2015
PTR OR No. 8791706 12/05/2017
IBP OR No. 035101 01/18/2018 Cebu City Chapter
MCLE COMPLIANCE No. V-0015102
Email add: juril.patino@yahoo.com

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Cebu ) S.S
x-------------------------------------/

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING

10
 I, MARIE JEAN LABRA RAFOLS, Filipino, of legal age, married,
and a resident of 806 V. Rama Avenue, Cebu City, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:
1. That I am the petitioner in this instant case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition and I have
read all the allegations contained therein and I hereby confirm and
declare that these are all true and correct to the best of my personal
knowledge and based on authentic records;
3. That I have not filed or commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same subject matter, parties and issue as of this instant
case before the Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeals, or before any
other court or tribunal and neither do I have knowledge of any such
pending action before the same courts already enumerated; and
4. That should I learn later that there is already such a pending action, I
will immediately inform this Honorable Court and the court where the
case is pending.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

rd
this 3 day of August 2018, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.

MARIE JEAN LABRA RAFOLS

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1st day of August

2018, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, affiant exhibited to me her Passport
I.D. No. P2705185A issued on April 17, 2017, issued at PCG Dubai.

Notary Public
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2018.

11