Sample Pre-Trial Brief (Final)

Republic of the PhilippinesNational Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTMakati City, Branch 168

EUNICE CRUZ-SANTIAGO, Civil Case No.: 12-168168Petitioner, For: Declaration of Nullity of

Marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines

- versus -

MICHAEL SANTIAGO,Respondent.

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

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF THE PETITIONER

The Petitioner, represented by the undersigned counsels as her

attorneys-in-law, respectfully submits to this Honorable Court this Pre-Trial

Brief, to wit:

I.

POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The Petitioner is not willing to consider any amicable settlement or

undergo alternative modes of dispute resolution with respect to the primary

prayer of this petition. However, the Petitioner is open to the possibility of

amicable settlement in relation to the partition and accounting of the

conjugal properties and assets of her union with the Respondent.

II.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The Petitioner proposes the following stipulation of facts:

1. Petitioner met Respondent sometime in May 2000 at Power Plant

Mall, Makati, where she worked part-time as a Sales Personnel at

Fully Booked. Respondent was one of the customers of said

bookstore whom she served and who took an immediate

attraction to her.

2. Respondent relentlessly wooed Petitioner for six (6) months by

showering her with flowers and gifts, visiting her frequently at

the bookstore and in her school, Assumption Makati, and

bringing her home.

3. During the courtship, Petitioner often asked Respondent where

he worked and what his job was, but Respondent always replied

that he was still looking for a suitable job that his mother would

approve of.

4. Petitioner also asked Respondent where he gets his money

whenever they went out on dates since the latter was

unemployed while he was courting Petitioner. Respondent

replied that his parents always gave him an allowance for

“gimmicks,” dates, and out-of-town trips.

5. During their dates, Petitioner observed that Respondent’s mother

would call him every two hours and ask him where he was.

Petitioner also observed that every time she went out on a date

with the Respondent, he always bought his mother a bouquet of

flowers before heading home.

6. Petitioner eventually committed to a relationship with

Respondent after about six (6) months of courtship when

Respondent told her that he would stop courting her if she would

not commit to a relationship with him.

7. About a month into the relationship, Petitioner attempted to

break up with Respondent because she found out that the

Respondent lied to her about looking for a job. Petitioner

discovered that Respondent, since graduating from college,

never sought employment.

8. Respondent later found employment in Villa Socorro Farm, a

company owned by his family where his mother was the Chief

Executive Officer, as an Sales Assistant.

9. Later, Respondent pleaded with the Petitioner to prove her love

to him by asking her to have pre-marital sex with him and when

she refused, Respondent attempted to commit suicide.

10. Fearing that Respondent would again attempt suicide, Petitioner

engaged in pre-marital sex with him, resulting in her feelings of

guilt and remorse.

11. Soon after this, Respondent proposed marriage to Petitioner

because he sensed the feelings of constant guilt and remorse

exhibited by Petitioner.

12. Petitioner and Respondent were married to each other at the

Manila Cathedral on 10 January 2002 before a certain Rev. dela

Cruz, as evidenced by their Certificate of Marriage dated 10

January 2002. The wedding ceremony and reception at the

Manila Hotel was attended by both parties' friends and family.

13. After the marriage ceremony, the spouses returned to their

respective parents' homes and lived separately since they had

not yet established a conjugal home.

14. Respondent visited Petitioner in her house in North Forbes Park

daily. However, Respondent’s mother would always call him up

and ask him to go home. Respondent’s mother would ask their

family driver to drive her to North Forbes Park to pick up her son

in the wee hours of the morning.

15. In 2002, as a result of Respondent's request, Petitioner moved in

to the house of Respondents' parents believing it would only be

temporary until the couple has enough money of their own to

rent or purchase their own residence.

16. In the same year, the couple established an Internet café

business along Makati Avenue, Makati which was mostly funded

by Respondent’s parents with the exception of the funds

invested by the Petitioner.

17. The Internet café business closed down about after a year due to

the fact that it was not earning enough profit with Petitioner

promising the Respondents' parents that they would reimburse

them for the capital they gave to start the business.

Respondents' mother on the other hand told her reimbursement

was not necessary because she never expected the same.

18. Sometime in 2002, since the couple’s savings were still

insufficient to purchase a house and lot, Petitioner applied for

and was employed as a Management Trainee at Hong Kong

Shanghai Bank (HSBC).

19. While working at HSBC, there were times that Petitioner would

come home late from work only to discover that Respondent was

out of the house or with his friends.

20. Also, there were a few occasions when Respondent was unable

to fetch Petitioner from HSBC as a result of the prohibition of the

former’s mother. In addition to this, there were several times

where Respondent would fetch Petitioner from the office with his

mother.

21. In February 2003, Petitioner and Respondent were finally able to

move out of Respondents' parents home. They moved to a house

purchased by Respondents' mother on No. 32 Maya St., which

was a block away from Respondents' parents home.

22. Respondent’s mother visited them every day, brought them food

for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Respondent’s mother also

volunteered to pay for the house utilities.

23. Sometime in March 2003, Respondent was relieved of his

position at Santiago Corporation when it was dissolved.

Respondent did not seek employment elsewhere.

24. Respondent’s mother began giving her son allowances to defray

his personal and familial expenses. Respondent’s mother asked

Petitioner what expenses were not being covered by her salary

and even volunteered to subsidize their other household

expenses.

25. During this period of unemployment, Respondent consistently

tried to convince Petitioner to move back into the home of

Respondent’s parents, because he stayed there anyway almost

the entire day since he had no work.

26. The couple moved back to Respondent's parents' house after

Petitioner lost her position at HSBC when the bank experienced a

bank run.

27. When the couple returned to the home of Respondent’s parents,

Respondent constantly reminded the Petitioner that they can live

off his parents who can afford to support them anyway and that

Petitioner should just abandon the idea of moving into their own

family home.

28. In a last ditch effort to save her marriage, the Petitioner

convinced the Respondent to undergo marriage counseling

sometime during the month of November 2003.

29. Petitioner brought him to Dr. Jimmy Tan, a psychologist, who not

only counseled the couple until July of 2004 but also made a

psychological evaluation and assessment of the Respondent at

the request of the Petitioner and with the knowledge and consent

of the former that his wife would receive a copy of the doctor’s

findings.

30. The psychological evaluation and assessment issued by Dr. Tan

on 21 June 2004, revealed that the Respondent is suffering from

a dependent personality disorder which is serious, incurable and

existing prior to the union between the two, rendering him

incapable of performing the essential marital obligations, the

features of which are (1) difficulty making everyday decisions

without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from

others, especially Respondent’s mother, (2) needs others to

assume responsibility for the major areas of his life (3) has

difficulty initiating work or doing things on his or her own, (4)

feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of

exaggerated fears of being unable to care for himself or herself,

(5) is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to take

care of himself or herself, and (6) an overwhelming lack of

interest to take responsibility for his actions and his life.

31. As Petitioner could no longer bear the emotional and

psychological stress brought about by Respondent’s mentality

and behavior, she left the home of her parents-in-law to live on

her own sometime in September 2004.

32. As found even by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of

the Catholic Church in a decision they released concerning the

so-called union between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 9

March 2006 penned by a Fr. Rodolfo Dacanay, S.J., the

Respondent manifested a simple but deep-seated aversion to

performing his marital obligations as he failed to provide the

Petitioner with the companionship, respect, mutual help, support,

and care required by law as he decided to provide the same to

his mother. The said decision goes on to state that the inability

of the Respondent to discharge the essential obligations of

marriage is grave and incurable, as the acts constituting the

same are habitual, persistent, unchanging and of enduring

nature.

III.

ISSUES TO BE TRIED AND RESOLVED

The Petitioner proposes the following issues to be tried and resolved by

this Honorable Court:

1. Whether or not the Respondent has failed to comply with the

essential marital obligations stated in Article 68 of the Family

Code;

2. If the Respondent has failed to comply with the essential marital

obligations stated in Article 68 of the Family Code, whether or

not such failure was due to psychological incapacity which is

grave, serious and incurable and existing at the time of the

marriage, though only manifesting itself during the marriage.

IV.

DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED

The Petitioner will present the following documents

1. Marriage Certificate between Eunice Cruz-Santiago and

Michael Santiago made on 10 January 2002.

2. Certificate of Employment of Michael Santiago from

Santiago Corporation issued on 4 September 2001.

3. Certificate of Employment of Eunice-Cruz Santiago from

HSBC issued in 2002.

4. Deed of Sale over No. 32 Maya St., Corinthian Gardens, Quezon

City purchased by Michael Santiago's mother on 8 January 2003.

5. Psychological Evaluation and Assessment of Michael

Santiago made by Dr. Jimmy Tan on 21 June 2004.

6. Decision of National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal

penned by Fr. Rodolfo Dacanay, S.J. on 9 March 2006.

7. Other documents as may be determined to be relevant to the

case during the course of trial.

V.

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

The Petitioner will present the following witnesses:

1. Eunice Cruz-Santiago will testify as to truthfulness of her

allegations in the petition, particularly the breakdown of her

union with Michael Santiago because of the latter's psychological

incapacity.

2. Dr. Jimmy Tan will testify as to the truthfulness of his

Psychological Evaluation and Assessment of Michael Santiago

made on 21 June 2004. He will also testify as to how serious

Michael Santiago's psychological condition is, what he believes is

the root cause of such condition and how it has manifested itself

in the union between Michael Santiago and Eunice Cruz-

Santiago.

3. Corazon Ayala-Santiago, mother of Respondent, will testify as

to the methods, schemes, and ways in which she helped her son

before and during the marriage. She will also testify as to the

nature of her relationship with her son and how the latter was

brought up in order to show the root cause of Respondent’s

psychological condition.

4. Other witnesses as may be determined to be relevant to the case

during the course of trial.

VI.

AVAILABLE DATES FOR TRIAL

The Petitioner respectfully requests that the trial dates be agreed upon

in open court at such dates and time convenient to the parties and the

calendar of this Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto this

Honorable Court that the foregoing Pre-Trial Brief be duly noted.

Makati City, 12 November 2012.

(SGD.) ALISON KAWCounsel for Petitioner

Address: #11 Malaya St., People's Village, Makati CityContact Nos.: (054) 887-1476; 0917-449-3285

Roll No. 97871PTR No. 024542; 1/10/09; Makati City

IBP No. 007308; 12/20/09; Makati Chapter

(SGD.) MATTHEW ONGCounsel for Petitioner




(SGD.) SERGIO PINLACCounsel for Petitioner




(SGD.) MARTIN UYCounsel for Petitioner




(SGD.) DIANNA WILWAYCOCounsel for Petitioner




Copy furnished:SAMSON MANGCO FERNANDO CRUZ GARCIA & ASSOCIATESCounsel for RespondentAddress: 10/F Commerce Centre, Valero St., Salcedo Village, MakatiContact Nos.: (081) 874-1478 to 90

EXPLANATION

Service of this petition is by registered mail instead of personal service because of lack of messengerial aide to make personal service.

(SGD.) ALISON KAW

(SGD.) MATTHEW ONG

(SGD.) SERGIO PINLAC

(SGD.) MARTIN UY

(SGD.) DIANNA WILWAYCOCounsels for Petitioner

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Rodel Ardales, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Attys. Kaw, Ong, Pinlac, Uy and Wilwayco, counsels for petitioner in the case entitled “Cruz-Santiago v. Santiago”, Civil Case No. 168168, and as such messenger I served upon the counsels of the adverse party, the petition filed in said case:

By depositing the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the counsels at their office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 12th day of November 2012, as shown by Registry No. 12345 dated 12 November 2012 of the post office of Makati City.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 12th day of November 2012 at Makati City.

(SGD.) RODEL ARDALESAffiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 12th day of November 2012 at Makati City, affiant exhibiting to me her Driver's License No. 12345852515 which will expire on April 26, 2014.

(SGD.) MICHAEL DELA CRUZNotary Public

Makati City

Doc. No. _______;Page No. _______;Book No. _______;Series of 2012.

Sample Pre-Trial Brief (Final)

Documents

Transcript of Sample Pre-Trial Brief (Final)