REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH ____, MALABON CITY

MARIO G. MAULIT,
Petitioner,

-versus- Civil Case No. _________

For: Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Marriage Under Article 36 of the Family
Code
MELY CASTA-MAULIT,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------x

PETITION
COMES NOW, Petitioner through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully alleges that:

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, with residence at No. 36-D Cherry Gail St.,
Gabriel Subdivision, Huling Duhat, Malabon City;

2. Respondent MELY CASTA-MAULIT is of legal age, Filipino with residence at No.

213 Guiho St., Cembo, Fort Bonifacio, Makati City, where she may be served with
summons and other court processes;

3. Petitioner and respondent came to know each other sometime in March 1992
when they were introduced by petitioner’s friend who happened to be the latter’s
cousin. Petitioner was said to have been captivated by respondent’s striking features
such that petitioner immediately decided to court her.

4. After a week, Respondent accordingly found out that petitioner was a seaman so
she accepted him. When petitioner passed the board exams, he was immediately given
a job offer, which he readily accepted. While on board, respondent would send him
letters and vice versa. They tried to keep their relationship alive despite the distance
that separated them. During their stint as sweethearts, he observed that she was
tamed, sweet, loving although silent at times;
 5. Petitioner and respondents relationship went on for 2 years. Whenever petitioner
was on vacation, they would go out on dates and make the most of their time together.
While sailing the high seas, petitioner made it a point to communicate with respondent
on a regular basis. They seldom had quarrels that petitioner thought he had found his
ideal girl;

6. However, petitioner soon started feeling miserable about his relationship with
respondent as reports regarding the latter’s misbehavior back home began to pop up.
Respondent was allegedly maintaining another boyfriend aside from him. Although
deeply affected by the news, Petitioner tried to shake the doubts off his head as he had
no evidence at hand to distrust her. Besides he believed that she wouldn’t do such a
thing, or at least his heart says so;

7. While on vacation sometime in 1994, respondent invited petitioner to go with her

to her hometown in Pangasinan so that she can introduce him to her parents. Unaware
of the impending danger that awaits him, petitioner unhesitatingly went along.
Although he was quite apprehensive with the thought of meeting her parents, petitioner
was also eager to meet her folks and have a glimpse of her background. But the flow of
events he had imagined suddenly vanished and was replaced with utter disbelief, shock,
and feeling of betrayal upon hearing what her parents told him.

8. As if he had fallen into a trap, petitioner could not refuse when respondent
parents demanded that he marry their daughter, lest something bad would happen to
him. He loved respondent so much, but at that moment, he was overwhelmed with her
treachery that he couldn’t help but feel bad. More so, he didn’t know how to explain to
his parents when they get back that he was already married while in the province with
her girlfriend.

9. So on May 31, 1994 petitioner and respondent were joined together in simple civil
ceremonies hastily prepared by her family. They exchanged vows before a judge in
Bolinao, Pangasinan. Of course, as none from petitioner’s family knew, only relatives
and friends of respondent attended. It was a very gloomy event for petitioner but he
tried to live with it. He could not do anything with it anyway. Copy of their marriage
certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A” and made as integral part hereof;
 10. After a few days, the newly-weds returned to Manila. Petitioner was more
worried as he is facing more problems as to how to tell his parents about his situation
and what to do with his new wife, where would she live, etc. Left with no other
recourse, petitioner admitted to his parents that he and respondent were already
married. At first, they could not accept her although she was already living in the
household. But as they had no choice, they later on accepted her.

11. With petitioner’s vacation over, petitioner resumed his overseas employment but
prior to his departure, he made necessary arrangements to ensure respondent’s
comfort and safety while he was away and thus left her at the hands of his parents. But
barely one month at work, he received news from his family informing him that
respondent left without telling them where she went. Distraught, petitioner was torn
between his signed contract and the desire to go home to search for his wife. But later
on, he decided to wait for his next vacation hoping that respondent would still come
back one day. The succeeding days really pained him as he did not know why she left
and that the events from his marriage to this had all happened so quickly. It was as if
she merely played with him all this time;

12. When his contract ended, respondent was really gone and hadn’t returned as he
had always prayed. He then tried to accept the fact that their marriage is over.
Petitioner went on with his life still hoping that she’ll still find her way back to him. But
his wait remained futile and when one day, he met with her cousin (the same person
who introduced them) and the latter told him that respondent is already living with
another man and have 3 children therein;

13. The foregoing act of respondent indicates that she has deceived petitioner
and failed provide the petitioner with companionship, mutual love, respect, mutual help
and support required by law. The inability of respondent to discharge the essential
obligation of marriage is grave and incurable considering that respondent is already
living with another man and have 3 children therein. Hence, respondent’s psychological
incapacity is incorrigible;

14. The foregoing circumstances pointed to none other than the existence of
psychological incapacity on the respondent to perform the essential obligations of a
married woman as validated by psychologists, Nedy Lorenzo Tayag on a written report
dated 30 October 2004, copy of which is hereto attached as annex “B”, forming integral
part hereof;

15. Herein parties did not have any child of their own and did not acquire any
conjugal property nor did they incur any debt during their marriage.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed for unto

this Honorable Court that after due hearing, judgment be rendered declaring the
marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void ab initio under the provisions
of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for under the premises.

Quezon City for Malabon City, January 4, 2005.

VALDEZ MAULIT & ASSOCIATES

4th Floor, DU-VAL Building.
669 Aurora Blvd., Quezon City

By:

MAMYRLITO D. TAN
PTR No. 0461301/1-06-05/C.C.
IBP No. 624394/1-05-05/C.C.
Roll No. 46411