Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

8TH Judicial Region
BRANCH 10
Bulwagan ng Katarungan
Abuyog, Leyte
-oOoDEXTER M. LORETO,
______
Petitioner,
-

versus

CIVIL CASE No.:

FOR:

MARY JANE BENUSA,

NULLITY OF
Respondent,
ARTICLE 36

DECLARATION OF
MARRIAGE UNDER
OF THE FAMILY CODE.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

PETITION
COMES NOW, Petitioner, through the undersigned counsel, unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:
1.

That petitioner is of legal age, married to respondent MARY JANE

BENUSA, and with permanent address at Brgy. Balinsasayao, Abuyog,
Leyte where he may be served with summons, notices and other
processes of the Honorable Court;

2.

That respondent is also of legal age, married to petitioner DEXTER M.

LORETO, and a resident of 454, Plaridel St., Barugo, Leyte where she
may be served with summons, notices and other processes of the
Honorable Court;

3.

That both petitioner and respondent have the capacity to sue and be
sued;

4.

That before they got married in civil rites on 19 May 1999 in Abuyog,
Leyte, petitioner and respondent got acquainted with each other
sometime in February, 1999 in a videoke bar in Carigara, Leyte where
petitioner was a walk-in customer with some friends while respondent
was working as a waitress in said videoke bar. Petitioner and
respondent got acquainted with each other during that first meeting.

Petitioner asked respondent if it would be alright for her if he took her

out after her work. Respondent agreed with petitioners request.
5.

That after her work, petitioner and respondent checked inside a

lodging house situated near the videoke bar where respondent work.
While inside, respondent took out a bottle of Ginebra San Miguel where
she said she got from the bar and offered it to petitioner. After having
three shots of the liquor, petitioner felt dizzy and lied down on the sofa.

6.

That thereafter, petitioner can barely recall what transpired between

him and respondent inside the lodging house. The next day, he was
surprised when he woke up inside an unfamiliar place. After regaining
his consciousness, he got out of the lodging house and went home.

7.

That after two months, respondent, accompanied by a friend, went to

petitioners house to inform him that something had happened
between them inside the lodging house. She also told petitioner that
she is pregnant because of what happened and feared that if her
parents discover her situation they might kill her. Confused, petitioner
told his parents of his ordeal and asked them on what to do. His
parents advised him to marry respondent in order to avoid scandal.

8.

The couple got married in civil ceremonies sometime on 19 May 1999

before Honorable Rodrigo de la Serna, Municipal Mayor of Abuyog,
Leyte. Copy of the Certificate of Marriage is hereto attached as Annex
A and made an integral part hereof;

9.

That petitioner and respondent lived with petitioners parents as

respondent quits her job and petitioner was still in college. They
depended for support entirely from petitioners parents.

10.

That it was during that cohabitation that petitioner sensed something

wrong in respondents behavior. Respondent would often get mad
whenever he arrives home late and is not immediately attended to by
petitioner. There was a time when petitioner was having a drinking
session with his friends inside their house that respondent went
berserk and told his friends to go home. Respondent got mad for the
flimsy reason that petitioner failed to immediately attend to her.

11.

That sometime in August 1999 during the fiesta celebration of their

place while petitioner and his friends were having a drinking session, a
girlfriend of petitioners friend arrived and joined them in their
drinking. That girlfriend of his friend did not stay long as respondent
became jealous, accusing that petitioner was the one whom that lady
went to their house for and not his friend. So petitioner requested his
friends to leave as respondent was already making trouble due to
jealousy. After his friends left their house, respondent quarreled
petitioner vigorously so he decided to evade trouble by going to bed.
Petitioner

was

shocked

when

moments

later,

respondent

followed him to the bedroom and with a knife in her hand, suddenly
attacked petitioner with a stab blow. Fortunately, petitioner was able to
evade respondents stab and was able to grab the knife. In order to
avoid trouble, petitioner left the house and stayed in his grandparents
house. That had been the situation as respondent would always cause
trouble for the flimsiest reason, mostly on baseless jealousy.
Such attempts against petitioners life were repeated on two
more instances even while respondent was pregnant, always on
baseless jealousy and other flimsy causes that were more imagined
than real.
Petitioner thought that respondents attitude will change after
the birth of their child. Unfortunately, even after the birth of their son
on November 25, 1999 their troublesome situation persisted as
respondent remained quarrelsome, causing trouble even more. At
times when petitioner would not have sexual intercourse with
respondent as petitioner is tired from school, respondent would get
mad and baselessly accuse petitioner of having an affair with other
women. In order to avoid trouble and getting quarreled by respondent,
petitioner would always oblige and fulfill the whims and caprices of
respondent. That situation led them to having three children as no
amount of control by petitioner could be done for respondent had that
high orgy and would quarrel petitioner if unmet.
12.

That petitioner and respondent begot three children, the first child
named ELY BENUSA LORETO was born on 25 November 1999; the
second child named MARCUS BENUSA LORETO was born on 10

October 2000; the third child named RAYMOND BENUSA LORETO

was born on 26 January 2003. Copy of the Certificates of Live Birth of
their three children are hereto attached as Annexes B, C, and D
and made integral parts hereof;
8.

That petitioner was employed with the Philippine National

Police on October 2003 and was assigned at Mahaplag Police Station.

9.

That lately, respondent committed another attempt against

the life of petitioner inside their house. The incident occurred on March
23, 2009 when respondent shot petitioner with a 45 caliber pistol in
front of their children whereby petitioner was hit on his foot. Copy of
the spot report is hereto attached as Annex E and made an integral
part hereof.
10.

That since that shooting incident in 2009, petitioner decided to

live separately from respondent, fearing for his safety as respondent

had manifested her criminal inclination against the life of petitioner. It
created an indelible mark in petitioners mind over a constant fear of a
continuing threat upon his life as respondent is a potential criminal
who can strike anytime;
11.

That when petitioner would confront respondent about her

unpleasant attitude and behavior, respondent would become violent,

shouting at petitioner with dirty attacks and engaging in verbal abuse
so humiliating and embarrassing to petitioner as respondent would do
it in public and in front of many people;
12.

That after the marriage ceremony, petitioner expected to

have a happy life with the respondent hoping that she will change her
behavior and attitude for the better, showing and observing mutual
love, respect, and fidelity and render mutual help and support in happy
companionship and feeling secure that they will learn to live in
harmony and peace with each other and with their children. However,
to petitioners dismay and frustration, respondent had been and still is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations.

13.

That petitioner found to his great shock and dismay that

respondents quarrelsome attitude turned from bad to worse, causing

trouble and disharmony in their marriage. Petitioner was so much hurt
and devastated after the several attempts by respondent upon his life,
the latest being the most fatal and life threatening as he was hit with a
gunshot aimed on the vital part of his body on his foot;
14.

That since petitioners discovery of respondents true

person of being violent who was prone to physically abuse petitioner

and her being an incorrigible troublemaker and quarrelsome person,
respondent willfully failed to perform her marital obligations and for all
intents and purposes does not consider him as her husband anymore.
Petitioner now sues respondent for the declaration of the nullity of the
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, as respondent at the
time she contracted marriage did not have the intent to perform her
marital obligations to the petitioner under Article 68 of the same
Code. As a matter of fact, immediately after their marriage, respondent
exhibited and manifested by overt acts and behavior that she was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations. The psychological incapacity was present at the time of
the celebration of the marriage, although the same became manifest
only thereafter, and thus, the marriage can be nullified under Article
36 of the Family Code;
Petitioner tried everything possible to persuade respondent to
change for the better and leave her violent personality so that they
could build their family and live together and establish a happy family,
fulfill their marital vows and discharge their reciprocal obligation to
consummate the essential duties of their union and in order that their
marriage will prosper to a happy family life but all such pleas by
petitioner were unheeded as respondent was in a paranoia of living a
violent life. Respondent was not ready to take the responsibilities and
was not prepared to live in a harmonious and peaceful union with
petitioner.
15.
signs

That respondents violent behavior and killer-instinct are clear

of

psychological

incapacity.

Respondents

odd

behavior

demonstrates a severe insensitivity and inability to give meaning and

significance to the marriage. It is very well to stress that one of the

essential marital obligations is to support each other under a mutual

love of a happy family life.
16.

That respondents act affirms her adamant willful refusal to take

the marital obligations of establishing a happy family. Respondents act

is indicative of a hopeless situation and a serious personality disorder
which is a clear manifestation of her incapacity to fulfill the obligations
of her marriage vows which requires the essential duties to live
together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity and render mutual
help and support;
17.

That petitioner, realizing that he is growing older day by day,

decided not to prolong his agony by filing this petition to nullify his
marriage with respondent, which marital life had long deteriorated and
broken into pieces.
18.

That ever since petitioner never fell in love with respondent

and his life was always in hellish trouble under imminent danger and
threat from a violent woman with killer instincts;
19.

That before the filing of this petition, petitioner had exerted

earnest efforts for possible reconciliation with respondent but the same
went all for naught.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered:
1.

Declaring the respondent MARY JANE

BENUSA psychologically incapacitated
to comply with the essential marital
obligations pursuant to the provisions of
Article 36 of the Family Code;

2.

Declaring the nullity of the marriage

between

petitioner

DEXTER

M.

LORETO and MARY JANE BENUSA for

being void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity on the part of
the

respondent

in

accordance

Article 36 of the Family Code;

with

3.

Allowing the petitioner to revert to his

civil status as SINGLE;

4.

Other reliefs just and equitable under

the premises are likewise prayed for.

SO PRAYED.
Barugo, Leyte for Tacloban City, Leyte. 05 January 2011.
ATTY. DON A. DEHAYCO
Counsel for the Petitioner
#45 Burgos St., Barugo,
Leyte
Appointment No. 25 Until
Roll of Attorneys

Dec. 2015
No. 12345

PTR No. 1398649 01/10/08

IBP No. 671008
06/28/02
Lifetime
Roll No. 54445
MCLE
Compliance
No.II0046869
Copy furnished:
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City

Republic of the Philippines)

Barugo, Leyte
)S.S.

COMBINED VERIFICATION WITH

CERTIFICATION OF NON FORUM SHOPPING
I, DEXTER M. LORETO, subscribing under oath, hereby deposes
and states that:
1. I am the petitioner in the instant case.
2. I have read the foregoing Petition and the allegations
therein are true and correct.
3. I attest to the authenticity of the annexes thereto.
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency.
5. No such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency.
6. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the

Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any

other tribunal or agency, I hereby undertake to notify
this Honorable Court within five (5) days from such
notice.
DEXTER M.
LORETO
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN, to before me this 5TH day of
January 2011 in Barugo, Leyte. The affiant exhibiting to me his SSS No.
N26-01-004190 issued by Social Security System, on May 12, 2001,
and Community Tax Certificate No. 32354455 issued on November 30,
2010, at Abuyog, Leyte.

2015
12345

ATTY. DON A. DEHAYCO

Notary Public for Barugo, Leyte
#45 Burgos St., Barugo, Leyte
Appointment No. 25 Until Dec.
Roll of Attorneys No.
PTR No. 1398649 01/10/08
IBP No.
671008
06/28/02
Lifetime
Roll No. 54445
MCLE Compliance No.I-0027464
MCLE Compliance

No.II-0046869
Doc. No. 1
Page No. 2
Book No. 3
Series of 2011