Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Br. 73 Malabon City
RYAN A. VALIENTE,
Petitioner,
CIVIL CASE NO: CV 885 MN
For: Declaration of Nullity of
-versus- Marriage
SHERLYN V. GONZALES VALIENTE,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW, petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable
Court most respectfully submits this Memorandum and in relation thereto states:
PARTIES
Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino and is presently residing at 78 Manapat
Street, Tanong Malabon City. He may be served with notices, orders, decisions
and other court processes at 2nd Floor, Overland Park Building, No. 245 Banawe
Street, Quezon City. Respondent is of legal age, Filipina, with last known address
at No. 47 Rivare St. San Juan Metro Manila where she may be served with notices,
orders, decisions and other court processes by the Honorable Court;
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner and respondent met in 2001 at Festival Mall in Alabang where
both of them were working. One time in their workplace, petitioner saw respondent
to be with a bruised lips and arm. When he asked her about the same, respondent
told him that it was caused by her father who has beaten her up just because she
was not able to go home as she went out with some friends. Respondent then told
petitioner that she was a battered child regularly beaten by her father who was a
1
former policeman and an alcoholic. Petitioner and respondent then became close
friends and went on dating. Eventually they became lovers without the benefit of
courtships. Petitioner felt deep sympathy for the respondent as she was
continuously being physically abused by her sadistic father. To free respondent
from her father, petitioner proposed to take her away from their home which the
latter agreed. Petitioner even proposed to marry the respondent so that she will
not feel embarrassed in front of her boss and co-workers. Respondent relished this
proposition thus on December 23, 2003, they went to the office of one Reverend
Ruben B. Agustin at 118 F. Blumentritt Street, San Juan Metro Manila where a
marriage ceremony was conducted for them. Thereat, they were made to sign a
Certificate of Marriage, dated December 23, 2003, which was later on handed to
them by Reverend Ruben B. Agustin. This is notwithstanding that they never
applied for a marriage license. Petitioner then took the respondent to the house of
his parents where he intended to hide her. Petitioner’s parent however did not
agree to this plan which made the respondent angry. She then told the petitioner
that she will just go home and was taken by the petitioner back to their house. After
a few weeks, respondent’s anger subsided and she resumed seeing the petitioner.
Nonetheless, petitioner felt that respondent did not love him at all but had just
acquiesced with their having an intimate relation to have a protector from her
abusive father. Further, he noticed that respondent is becoming distant, aloof and
was also frequently going out with her friends, male and female alike. Petitioner
passed this off as just a way of the respondent’s to forget her traumatic experience
with her father. Sometime in 2006, respondent applied for work in Dubai as a food
server which the petitioner resented very much. They argued long and hard about
the respondent working in foreign land where rumors abound about female
overseas workers being maltreated or even sexually molested. At the end of the
argument, it was respondent’s wishes which prevailed thus she really did left for
Dubai leaving the petitioner in the Philippines. Just so that he can still see the
respondent, petitioner resigned from his work and applied for work in Dubai. In
Dubai, respondent did not even fetched the petitioner at the airport and a week
has passed before she met with him in a restaurant. Thereafter, petitioner and
respondent gets to see each other only on weekends to stroll in the malls and eat
in restaurant. They however stayed in different apartments at the insistence of the
respondent. Petitioner resented this but cannot do anything about it for fear that
respondent will be angry with him and not see him anymore. While in Dubai,
2
rumors spread out that respondent is having an illicit relationship with one of her
co-workers. Petitioner went out of his way to check this rumor and was distraught
to find out that it was true. One afternoon he asked permission to leave work early
to go to the apartment of the respondent. In the bus stop nearest the respondent’s
apartment, he waited for her and was depress to see her alighting together with
one of her co-workers. Thus, it came to a surprise to the petitioner when
respondent announced that she is pregnant and that it is the petitioner who is the
father of her unborn child. When petitioner relayed this suspicion of his to the
respondent, she got very angry and told the petitioner that they do not see each
other anymore. Petitioner and respondent since then became stranged with each
other. Up to the present, petitioner and respondent did not see each other
anymore. Petitioner and respondent did not incur any conjugal debt not have they
obtained any conjugal properties.
ISSUE/S
WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
THE RESPONDENT CAN BE DECLARED AS VOID AB INITIO
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES
Exhibit “A” – The Marriage Contract between the petitioner and the
respondent.
Exhibit “B” – Birth Certificate of the parties first child.
Exhibit “C” – Birth Certificate of the parties second child.
Exhibit “D” – Psychological Evaluation Report.
Exhibit “E” – Judicial Affidavit of the Petitioner.
Exhibit “F” – Judicial Affidavit of the Psychologist.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
This is a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
New Family Code grounded on respondent’s incapacity to perform his essential
marital obligations. The evidences, oral and documentary, submitted by the
3
petitioner established completely established the incapacity of the respondent to
perform his essential marital obligation. Said incapacity, having been present even
before the celebration of the parties marriage and were identified to be incurable,
makes petitioner’s consortium with the respondent very detrimental to them and
their minor child. Thus, it is only appropriate that the parties marriage should be
declared null and void ab initio by the Honorable Court;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered ordering the marriage between the petitioner and
respondent as null and void “ab initio”;
Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises are also
prayed for.
Quezon City for Malabon City. December 3, 2014.
ATTY. PEARLITO B. CAMPANILLA
Suite B 2nd Floor Overland Park Bldg.,
No. 245 Banawe St. cor. Quezon Ave., Q.C
PTR 772308 01-18-13 QC
IBP Life 010564 2-3-12 Pasig City, Roll No. 37522
MCLE Compliance No. IV - 0018064
cc.
SHERLYN V. GONZALES VALIENTE,
No. 47 Rivare St. San Juan Metro Manila
The Public Prosecutor Office
Branch 73, Regional Trial Court
Malabon City
The Office of the Solicitor General
Amorsolo Street, Makati City
Explanation
Copies of this document was sent by registered mail only due to the distances involved.
