Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 97 Quezon City

Manuel T. Rivera,
Petitioner,

 CIVIL CASE NO. 36745

 -versus-
FOR: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE

Eliza C. Rivera, 
Respondent,
x-------------------------------------------x 

PETITION

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. Petitioner, through undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully states: 

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

10A Pres. Garcia St., Teoville East Subd., Brgy. Manresa, Quezon City, Metro
Manila for more than  six months prior to the filing of the petition. He may be
served with notices of the Honorable Court at the address of the undersigned
counsel;
2. Respondent, Eliza C. Rivera, is a Filipino citizen, of legal age, and with address at
#45E Langka St., Brgy. Balingasa, Balintawak, Quezon City, where she may be
served with the summons and notices of this Honorable Court;
3. Petitioner and Respondent were married on May 21, 2020 as can be gleaned from
a copy of their Certificate of Marriage, which is herewith attached and marked as
Annex “A”;
4. Petitioner and Respondent first met sometime in 2016 at the Holy Spirit
Hospital. Where Manuel was working as a nurse at that time, while Eliza was
working as a Medical Representative.
5. Petitioner and respondent saw each other everyday at work. Since then,
Petitioner found the Respondent as an approachable and considerate person.
 They became textmates from March to June of that year when one of Petitioner’s
workmates gave him Respondent’s mobile number. At the end of the
three-month courtship, the Petitioner and Respondent became romantically in a
relationship. 
6. During their relationship, Respondent professed to Petitioner about the former’s
conservative nature and avow to stay pure until marriage. Petitioner respected
Respondent’s resolution and did not do any action that would displease the
Respondent. 
7. After four years of being sweethearts, Petitioner and Respondent eventually got
married to each other on August 8, 2020. 
8. Contrary to the Petitioner’s expectations, that as newlyweds they were supposed
to enjoy making love, or having sexual intercourse, with each other, the
Respondent just went to bed, slept on one side thereof, then turned her back and
went to sleep. There was no sexual intercourse between them during the first
night and the following three months thereafter. 
9. It was only in the fourth month of their marriage that the Respondent agreed on
having sexual intercourse. This made the petitioner ecstatic because he waited for
four years and thought that the Respondent had already accepted and trusted
him to accede to his sexual desires. 
10. However, the Petitioner’s bliss ended shortly as the Respondent would always
come up with excuses  to have intercourse with him. The Petitioner would 
consider himself lucky if the Respondent would agree to have sexual intercourse
with him two times a month. Also, the Petitioner noticed that during the
intercourse, the Respondent looked forced to do it with him. 
11. Petitioner had observed that their marital relationship is different from those
stories shared with him by his colleagues at work. Nonetheless, Petitioner
continued to be a loving husband to the Respondent as he chose and saw the
latter as companion for life and in the hope that the Respondent would on the
years to come despite the lack of sexual intercourse. 
12. Sometime in 2021, when the Petitioner was on leave from work, he went to visit
the Respondent in her workplace to bring her dinner. At the time he arrived, the
respondent was cozying up at the hospital’s cafeteria. To his surprise, he saw the
Respondent  being intimate with her lady co-workmate, Riza M. Villanueva, a
Medical Representative. Due to shock, the Petitioner hurriedly went home
confused and hurting. 
13. When the Petitioner confronted her about the matter, Respondent tried to
come up with excuses but later on revealed to Petitioner that she is having
an affair with a colleague at work and that she’s a lesbian.
 14. Feeling betrayed by his wife, the Petitioner left the conjugal home after
the marital fight.

15. There are no existing properties belonging to the Absolute Community of

Properties that can be disposed of in accordance with law. Petitioner and
Respondent did not incur any conjugal debts;

16. All efforts aimed at reconciliation of the parties have been exhausted, but
proved futile and to no avail.

17. The recital of facts clearly establishes that Respondent deliberately concealed
her true sexual orientation, defrauding herein petitioner. It must be further 
underscored that respondent violated paragraph 3 of Article 45 of the Family
Code, to wit:

Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,
existing at the time of the marriage:
 
XXX
 
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless
such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting
the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
 
 This is in relation to paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Family Code, to wit:

Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred
to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:
 
XXX
 
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or
homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.

18. The manifestations of respondent’s concealment of lesbianism were only

made known to him after the celebration of their marriage;

19. Their wedding was therefore a farce, as respondent was incapacitated to

comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, the marriage that took
place on August 8, 2020, is deemed voidable. In fairness to the parties, therefore,
they should be freed from the bonds tying them.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court, that after

due hearing, judgement be rendered annulling the marriage between Petitioner, Manuel
T. Rivera, and Respondent, Eliza C. Rivera, on the ground of fraud by concealment of
lesbianism existing at the time of marriage under paragraph 3 of Article 45 in relation to
paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Family Code.

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

24 May 2022
Manila City

Sgd. Hercea Chu

Counsel for the Petitioner

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Manuel T. Rivera, Filipino citizen, married, and of legal age, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state the following:

1. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition, the factual allegations of
which are true of my own personal knowledge and authentic records within my
possession;
2. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding has been filed or
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;
3. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or
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.

SGD. Manuel Rivera

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on May 20, 2022 in

Quezon City, affiant exhibiting to me his competent evidence of identity, to wit:
Passport- issued on 25 April 2017 and valid until 24 April 2027.

Doc No. ;  014

Page No. ; 01
Book No. ; 001
Series of 2022.