Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch XXX
Bauang, La Union

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Petitioner,
CIVIL CASE NO. 2836-BG
- versus - for
JUDICIAL DECLARATION
OF NULLITY OF
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, MARRIAGE UNDER
Respondent. ART.36 OF THE FAMILY
x----------------------------------x CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES

PETITION

Petitioner, by and through the undersigned counsel

respectfully submits this Petition.

1. Petitioner is a Filipino citizen, of legal age and married to

the respondent and a resident of Centro Aguioas, Naguilian,
La Union. For the purpose of this petition, he may be served
with notices and other pertinent processes through counsel’s
address in Poblacion, Tubao, La Union.

2. Respondent, is also of legal age, married, Filipino citizen

and a resident of Sili, Naguilian, La Union where she could be
served with summons, orders, notices and processes relative
to this instant case.

3. The parties were married on May 6, 1998 in Naguilian, La

Union solemnized by Honorable RTC Judge Santiago E.
Soriano. A copy of the Certificate of Marriage is attached
hereto as ANNEX “A” and made as an integral part of this
Petition.

4. The PARTIES begot two (2) children namely:

AIMERSHINE C. SORIANO, 21-year old and AIMERLYN C.
SORIANO, 20-year old and all are currently living with the
petitioner. Copies of the Certificates of Live Birth of the
children are attached as Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively.
5. Petitioner and respondent have known each other since
their childhood. Respondent hailed in Sili while petitioner in
Aguioas, Naguilian however their barangay is just separated
by a river. Petitioner courted respondent for three years before
official becoming couple.

6. During the early stage of their relationship, petitioner

was working as tricycle driver in their barangay while
respondent is a happy go lucky and fun searching student.

7. Unfortunately, respondent got pregnant during the

relationship so her parents demanded that petitioner marries
the respondent before she gave birth.

8. Petitioner agreed so they got married, when respondent

had their first child, she stays home while petitioner ferries
passengers in Naguilian using his tricycle.

9. But petitioner was informed that respondent began to

join bingo sessions and brought their young child with her but
petitioner did not believe them because respondent might got
bored and joined for the first time.

10. Moreover, whenever petitioner came home he always

buys fish or meat and vegetable for their viand from the
market. One time, he left to continue ferrying passengers but
when he came back the fish and vegetable is still where he put
them and still uncooked.

11. They started fighting due to petty things to cooking but

because petitioner considered his daughter’s welfare, he had
no choice but to give in and do the house chores undone.

12. When their children became ten and seven years old,
respondent informed petitioner that she want to work abroad
due to “kinarigat ti biag” as she put it. Gladly, petitioner
agreed because he had in mind that his wife was mature
enough to know their hardship in life. He borrowed money
from a relative to pay the placement fee of respondent.

13. In 2006 respondent went to Singapore to work. She came

back after a year and it is when petitioner observed that
respondent paid too much attention to her cellular phone. She
is always busy texting and sometimes secretly talking to
someone over the phone.
14. While respondent is in Singapore, petitioner received a
call from one “Dave” claiming that he is with his wife but
petitioner did not believe him. However, petitioner informed
respondent about the call but respondent denied it.

15. When she left to finish her contract, she refused to come
back to the family residence rather she came back to her
family house in Sili, Naguilian, La Union with her paramour.
She also demanded custody over their children which
petitioner objected to and insisted that respondent might not
be with their children but he could work to provide for and
raise his children.

16. Because petitioner realized that the need of his family is

increasing, he applied as an OFW and was deployed in Middle
East.

17. During the time that petitioner went abroad until this
time their common children is under the custody of the
petitioner while he is working as OFW his mother took over.

18. Petitioner continued to raise his family while respondent

started to have her own family with her paramour. At present
she has two children and still with her paramour.

19. The aforementioned incidents show that petitioner and

respondent psychologically incapacitated to comply with their
respective essential obligations such incapacity is permanent
and incurable.

20. The reconciliation of the parties is highly improbable

thus more than anything else wants his marriage with
respondent declared null so that both of them can have
direction on their own lives;

21. Despite the odds, petitioner allows his children to be with

their mother during special occasions considering they are of
age now, child custody is not an issue;

22. During their marriage, the parties did not bring into the
marriage and acquire any property until this time. Moreover,
no properties were registered in the name of either of the
parties or both of the parties.