1.docx

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13 -versusFOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

PETITION

Petitioner, in the above-entitled case, thru the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges that:

1. Petitioner FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR is of legal age, Filipino Citizen, married to herein respondent RICHARD C. GASPAR, and a resident of Brgy. 9-Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, where she has been residing for more than six (6) months prior to the filing of this petition, and where she may be served with summons, notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable Court;

2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to petitioner. He may be served with summons, notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable Court at his last known address at Brgy. 5 San Ramon, Vintar, Ilocos Norte, Philippines;

3. Petitioner and respondent tied the marital knot on March 28, 2009 at the Roman Catholic Parish of San Nicolas de Tolentino, Vintar, Ilocos Norte, copy of their Marriage Certificate is hereby attached as Annex “A”;

4. Petitioner and respondent got to know each other sometime in June 2002 when they were still Criminology students. After a

while of being classmates, respondent endeared himself to the petitioner by being a gentleman, thoughtful and sweet. Petitioner also admired respondent’s intelligence as well as his gift for words;

5. Eventually, the respondent started to show his admiration towards petitioner by formally courting the petitioner sometime in November 2002. Since the petitioner and respondent had a positive mutual feelings for each other, she accepted his love a month later;

6. Sex became a part of their relationship until the petitioner was impregnated by the respondent in 2003. Because of what happened, they decided to live together as husband and wife under a common law partnership with the consent of their parents;

7. Petitioner and respondent had two children out of wedlock. Their first child, Rosemarie G. Gaspar was born on March 15, 2004 while their second child Rhea G. Gaspar was born on May 5, 2005, copies of their Certificates of Live Birth are hereto attached as Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively;

8. The petitioner and respondent continued their studies with the help of their parents. Respondent graduated in 2005 and passed his board examination in Criminology. Same is true with the petitioner. The respondent was hired as a policeman. His first assignment was at the National Capital Region;

9. Petitioner and respondent were supposed to get married during those times, but the petitioner began to have second thoughts in marrying her live-in partner because she observed unpleasant traits of the respondent. They quarrelled every day because of misunderstandings. Respondent turned out to be grossly irresponsible as the head of the family. Instead of helping his wife, he preferred to stay out with his friends to have good time at almost every night and more often than not comes home early in the morning the following day. His unmindful ways persisted even with the presence of their two kids so much so that fighting between the petitioner and respondent became a daily routine. The petitioner recounted that most of their arguments were triggered by his irresponsibility and neglectful attitude. She also noticed that her husband was

never closed to his children because he never made an effort in taking care of them; 10. Sometime in 2007, she started to notice that her husband was acting differently. Unlike before, he had turned cold and indifferent towards her;

11. One time, the respondent arrived dead drunk, his cellular phone’s battery was drained. Petitioner charged the phone and after browsing its messages, she discovered text messages from a woman telling the respondent how thankful she was for dropping by. The petitioner got her number and started to set up a date with that woman at Jollibee the following morning. The petitioner also invited the respondent;

12. The following day, the three met in Jollibee and petitioner confirmed that the respondent had a nocturnal relationship with the other woman. The woman admitted that they have an affair. The respondent was speechless and could not say a word. The petitioner opted to address their problem calmly for she was already working as a police officer at that time. She opted to face her problems in silence. However, the respondent never showed any remorse of what he did. His infidelity persisted and he neglected his duties as a husband. Sex became infrequent afterwards;

13. In the year 2009, the respondent suddenly made a wedding proposal to the petitioner. For her, she wanted to give him a second chance hoping that he will change into a better man in the future. She accepted his proposal and their wedding was set on March 28, 2009 and it was attended by close friends and relatives. After the ceremony, the spouses went back to their respective assignments as police officers;

14. In 2011, respondent was assigned in Ilocos Norte while the petitioner was stationed in Antipolo, Rizal. He met an accident and killed two pedestrians. Fortunately, he was able to settle the case amicably with the victim’s family. When he went to Manila to pick up the settlement money from his wife, he arrived home drunk. He asked the petitioner that if ever he had another woman, would she forgive him. Before the petitioner would even answer him, he dozed off and slept;

15. On February 14, 2012, one of petitioner’s friends from Ilocos Norte Marielle Calumag, called her asking her if she were in town. Marielle claimed that she saw petitioner’s husband at a food chain, but she was not sure if it was the petitioner that she saw for the girl seemed smaller than her. The petitioner immediately confronted the respondent, but he told her that the girl he was with at that time was only a friend of his. She was not convinced with his explanations so she took a vacation and went home to his husband to clarify things;

16. When she confronted him about the girl named Cherry, who was being linked to him since he was assigned in Ilocos Norte, respondent told her that she is a councilor of Vintar, Ilocos Norte and he used to escort her as a security official;

17. They tried to patch things up but the respondent obviously lost his interest to his wife by his cold treatment. He often went out with his friends instead of spending time with his family. The petitioner tried to move on, but she continued to hear unpleasant information against her husband. His husband’s neglect of his marital obligations even became worse. He became verbally abusive towards her to a point of telling her that if only her parents were alive, he will return her to them. Respondent never changed his attitude. He remained indulgent to his infidelity;

18. His gross irresponsibility became a source of their fights and quarrels. He continued to have illicit relationships to different women. He never showed any drive to fulfil his obligations as a husband and father;

19. The worst thing that petitioner discovered was the respondent having an affair with married woman with children. They also have a joint account in a social network and she was able to read their secrets. For her it was a signal that the respondent is no longer interested in their marriage. Petitioner was skin and bone after grieving from what she saw until she decided to work in Ilocos Norte in 2012. Sometime in 2013, respondent finally deserted his family and eloped with Cherry;

20. Petitioner never felt loved and never had any peace of mind since they were married. She has always been emotionally tormented on how her husband acted causing her

sleepless nights. After those hurtful events in her marital life, petitioner came into a decision that she has to end her suffering from her doomed marriage. She experienced emotional torment throughout her marriage and believes that her marriage is already beyond repair;

21. However, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is void from the beginning for the reason that at the time petitioner and respondent contracted marriage, respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the marital obligations of marriage and such incapacity became manifest only after the celebration of their marriage;

22. Petitioner and respondent are obliged under the law to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support, materially, socially and spiritually, but these are essential obligations of marriage which the respondent failed to observe and is incapable of performing of fulfilling: a. He is an avid partygoer, his friends and colleagues were his priority rather than his wife or his family life and children; b. He is disloyal, disrespectful and notoriously unfaithful to his spouse; c. He is grossly irresponsible and habitually dishonest; d. He lacked remorse. Even if petitioner tried her best to bear respondent’s shortcomings as a husband, he has not done any move to change his ways or to ask for an apology for his misdeeds;

23. The foregoing acts show that respondent was remiss in the performance of his marital obligations to render mutual help and support and to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity; 24. Respondent’s psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations appears to be grave, incurable and deeply-rooted as will be proven by a psychologist in the course of the proceedings;

25. Petitioner was constrained to file this action to free herself from the inequity of being bound by a marriage to a man who only cares for himself and has totally neglected his marital obligations to his wife;

26. Petitioner and respondent have no properties acquired during their marriage that may be subject of dissolution;

27. A copy of this petition shall be furnished to the Office of the Solicitor General at 134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village, Makati City, and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Marcos Hall of Justice, Laoag City within five (5) days from filing and to file proof of service within the same period of service within the same period, pursuant to Sec. 5(4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, the marriage between petitioner and respondent be declared null and void in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines and Executive Order No. 209, as amended by Executive Order No.227.

Petitioner also prays for such other reliefs as may be deem just and equitable under the foregoing premises.

Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. June 18, 2014.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Counsel of the Petitioner Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26,2012 Address: CALMA Law Office, Room 205, 888 Realty Bldg. Gen. Luna, Cor. Balintawak Sts., Laoag City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that: I am the petitioner in the foregoing Petition; I have caused the preparation of this Petitioner; The content hereof are true to the best of my knowledge and/or based on authentic documents; I certify that no case of the same nature and cause of action or issue was filed before any tribunal, regular court, administrative, or quasi-judicial body that has jurisdiction hereof, and if known, shall notify this court within 5 days upon notice.

Done this June 18, 2014, Laoag City, Philippines.

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR Affiant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF LAOAG )s.s.

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this June 18, 2014 at Laoag City, Philippines, FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, exhibiting to me her PRC ID No. 0030649 as Criminologist, valid until 4/18/2017.

WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL on the date, year and place above-mentioned. ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Notary Public Until December 31, 2014 Roll No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV0006479, June 26, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF LAOAG )s.s.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, SHELLAH B. REYES, of legal age, single, Filipino citizen and a resident of Brgy. 23, Sarrat, IlocosNorte, Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby voluntarily depose and state that: I am the secretary of ATTY. ROWELL CALMA; On 20 June 2014, I served a copy of the following petition: PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE, FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR versus RICHARD C. GASPAR, Civil Case No. 0143-13 to be filed with the Regional Trial Court, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Branch 11, pursuant to Section 3, 4, 5, and 10, Rules of Court as of follows: BY REGISTERED MAIL WITH RETURN CARD TO: THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village Makati City, Philippines By depositing one (1) copy of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on 20 June 2014, at Laoag City Post Office as evidenced by the Registry Receipt Number 1123 hereto attached and/or indicated after the name of the addressee and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. Laoag City, Philippines. 20 June 2014.

SHEILA B. REYES Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20 June 2014 at Laoag City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me her Postal ID No. 2660368, valid until January 2016 as competent proof of her identity.

Doc. No.: ___ Page No.: ___ Book No.: ___ Series of: ___

ATTY. LIZ R. DOMINGO Notary Public Until December 31, 2014 Roll No.1476-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123986-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7632451-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV0006659, June 26, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR:DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER A complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage was filed by the plaintiff FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR. However, before this court could act on the complaint by the issuance of summons to herein defendant, plaintiff is hereby directed to show proof of her residence in Brgy. 9-Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, as stated in the complaint, within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED. Given in chambers this 23rd day of July 2014 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, Laoag City, IlocosNorte

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner, -vs-

CIVIL CASE No. 2460-19 FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD S. GASPAR, Respondent. x---------------------------------------------x

MANIFESTATION AND COMPLIANCE PETITIONER, in the above-captioned case, through counsel and unto this Most Honorable Court respectfully manifests: That on July 10, 2014, the petitioner, thru counsel, received a copy of the Order of the Most Honorable Court dated July 3, 2014 directing her to show proof of her residence within five (5) days from receipt. In compliance with the Order of the Honorable Court, we respectfully submit the attached Affidavit as proof of petitioner’s residence in Brgy. 9Sta. ngela,Laoag City, IlocosNorte. WHEREFORE, above premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing Manifestation and Compliance be noted for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines. 14 July 2014.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Counsel of the Petitioner Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

The Clerk of the Court RTC Branch 11 Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings! Please submit the foregoing Manifestation and Compliance immediately upon receipt hereof for the consideration and approval of the Most Honorable Court.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished: By personal service

APP KENNETH DOMINGO Provincial Prosecutor’s Office Laoag City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF LAOAG )s.s

AFFIDAVIT

I, ROSE MADARANG, of legal age, single, Filipino citizen and resident of Brgy.9-Sta. Angela Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby voluntarily depose and state that: I am a bonafide resident of Brgy.9-Sta. Angela Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines; That I have been a resident of the said place since 1957 and I own the house where I reside; That I personally know FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, policewoman assigned at Bacarra, IlocosNorte; That since November 2013, FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR has been renting one of the rooms at my house up to present; That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and for whatever legal purpose it may serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 14th day of July 2014 at Laoag City, Philippines.

ROSE MADARANG Affiant PRC ID No.000111721 Valid Until: 02 Oct 2015

SUBSCRIBEDAND SWORN to before me this 14th day of July 2014 at Laoag City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me the foregoing government issued ID indicated below her name and signature as competent proof of her true identity.

Doc. No. : __ Page No.: __ Book No.: __ Series of ___

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Notary Public Until December 31, 2014 Roll No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV0006479, June 26, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER Finding the Manifestation/Compliance of petitioner to be not substantiated with sufficient proof of her residency at Barangay 9Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, the instant petition is hereby Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED. Given in chambers this 22nd day of July 2014, Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Most Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the Order dated July 22, 2014 and alleges that:

On July 24, 2014 the undersigned counsel received the Order issued by the Honorable Court dismissing the above case for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficiency of proof of petitioner’s residency at Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte;

Petitioner is hereby submitting additional proof of her residency with the said barangay six (6) months prior to the filing of this petition: A CERTIFICATION from the Punong Barangay of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte and a CONTRACT OF LEASE of her residency in the said barangay, copies of said certification and contract of lease are hereto attached as Annex “A” and Annex “B”, respectively;

On bended knees, the undersigned pleads for the understanding of the Most Honorable Court to reconsider its decision dated July 22, 2014 and continue to take cognizance of the above case;

This motion for reconsideration is not meant to delay the resolution of the above-titled case. ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, with bended knees and with all humility, the undersigned respectfully reiterates his prayer that the Most Honorable Court reconsiders the Order dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction and continue to take cognizance of the above case.

Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines, August 8, 2014.

By: ROWELL CALMA Counsel for Petitioner Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

NOTICE The Clerk of Court RTC Branch 11 Laoag City, IlocosNorte Greetings! Please submit the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration immediately upon receipt hereof for the consideration and approval of the Most Honorable Court. Kindly set the hearing of the same on August 14, 2014 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning. Thank you. ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished: by personal service APP KENNETH DOMINGO Provincial Prosecutor’s Office Laoag City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES BARANGAY STA. ANGELA City of Laoag Province of IlocosNorte OFFICE OF THE BARANGAY CHAIRMAN

CERTIFICATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, married and a resident of Barangay 9-Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines is personally known to me.

This is to further certify that she resided at this Barangay since November 2013.

This certification is issued upon the request of the abovenamed individual for whatever legal purpose/intent it may lawfully serve. Issued this 7th day of August 2014 at Barangay Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines.

BENJAMIN TORRES Punong Barangay

CONTRACT OF LEASE KNOW ALL MEN BY THIS PRESENTS This contract entered into by and between: ROSE MADARANG, of legal age, single, Filipino and a resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela,Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines, and hereinafter known as LESSOR; and; FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and a resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines and hereinafter known as LESSEE; WITNESSETH WHEREAS, are the LESSOR is the lawful owner of a residential building located at Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines; WHEREAS theLESSORis offering the said residetential building for lease; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the amount of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS per month, the LESSOR hereby leases unto the said LESSEE, a room of said building subject to the following terms and conditions; 1. That the term of this lease shall be TWO (2) years of commencing on the 28th day of November, 2013, to 31st day of December, 2015 renewable for another period of TWO (2) years upon the mutual agreement of both parties; 2. That the LESSEE agrees to pay the LESSOR a monthly rental of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS(Php 1,500.00) payable every 30th day of the month and a penalty of 2% for late payments; 3. That the LESSE has a deposit amounting to THREE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3,000.00) representing one month advance and one month deposit, non-refundable but applicable for the last two months of stay of the LESSEE;

4. That any improvement made by the LESSEE shall have prior consent of the LESSOR without benefit of reimbursement of expenses; 5. That the LESSOR shall not be responsible for damages or loss of properties of the LESSEE in the leased premises that may be caused by fire, force major and theft or burglaries and the like; 6. That the LESSEE shall be his own expense, maintain the leased premises in good, clean and sanitary condition and is prohibited from storing any flammable or identical hazardous materials in the leased premises; 7. That the LESSEE is not allowed to sub-lease the premises or any portion thereof without the consent of the LESSOR; 8. That the LESSEE shall be liable for damages for the leased premises incurred through his/her faults, his/her workers or visitors expecting through ordinary wear and tear, which shall be borne by the LESSOR; 9. That the LESSOR can inspect the leased anytime; 10. That the parties are enjoined to strictly comply with the above terms and conditions of this contract; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this November 28, 2013 at Laoag City, Philippines.

ROSE MADARANG Lessor Lessee TIN: 345-165-987

FRANCES G. GASPAR TIN: 653-876-098

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: ___________________

___________________

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF LAOAG ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, this November 28, 2013 in the City of Laoag, province of IlocosNorte, Philippines, personality appeared ROSE MADARANG and FRANCES GUERRERO GASPARwith their respective proof of identification indicated below their names and signature, known to me to be same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal the day, year and place above written.

Doc. No.: ___ Page No.: ___ Book No.: ___ Series of: ___

ATTY. LIZ R. DOMINGO Notary Public Until December 31, 2014 Roll No.1476-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123986-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7632451-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV0006659, June 26, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

When this case was called for hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by plaintiff thru counsel, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Kenneth Domingo appeared for the government while Atty. Rowell Calma for the plaintiff.

Counsel manifested that he is submitting the motion for reconsideration without further arguments.

The motion is submitted for resolution.

SO ORDERED. Given in open court this 14th day of August 2014 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village Makati City, Metro Manila Tel. Nos. 8186301-89

August 5, 2014 The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Laoag City, IlocosNorte RE:

Nullity of Marriage Civil Case No. 2460-19 RTC-Br. 11, Laoag City, IlocosNorte FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR vs. RICHARD C. GASPAR x------------------------------------------------x

Sir: Pursuant to section 35(7), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of the 1987, you are hereby deputized to assist the Solicitor General in the above-titled case. Please be informed that your authority is subject to the reservation contained in the Notice of Appearance filed by the Solicitor General in this case the only notices of orders, resolution and decisions served on him will bind the Government, the entity, agency and/or official representative. Upon promulgation of judgement, report and recommendation on the merits of the case should be submitted to this office for evaluation. Very truly yours,

ISRAEL DELA CRUZ Solicitor General

RENER CAFIRMA Senior State Solicitor

KIDD CASTRO State Solicitor

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13 FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

The Clerk of Court RTC-Br.11, Laoag City, IlocosNorte Greetings! Please enter the appearance of the Solicitor General as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines in the above-entitled case and cause all notices of hearings, orders, resolutions, decisions and other process to be served upon him at the office of the Solicitor General, 134 Amorsolo Street, Makati City. The Provincial Prosecutor in Laoag City, IlocosNorte has been authorized to appear in this case and, therefore, should also be furnished notices of hearings, orders, resolutions, decisions and processes. However, as the Solicitor General retains supervision and control of the representation in this case and has to approve withdrawal of the case, only notices of orders, resolutions, and decisions served on him will bind the party represented.

Adverse parties are likewise requested to furnish both the Solicitor General and the Prosecutor with copies of their pleadings and motions. Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13, New Rules Civil Procedure, the foregoing Notice of Appearance is being filed and served by registered mail, personal filing and service not being practical due to distance.

City of Makati for Laoag City, IlocosNorte, August 5, 2014. ISRAEL DELA CRUZ Solicitor General Roll No. 25719 IBP Lifetime Membership No. 00037 MCLE Exemption No. III-0008523

RENER CAFIRMA Senior State Solicitor Roll of Attorneys No. 41169 IBP Lifetime No. 011303 MCLE Compliance No. 0009083, 11, 13-12

IV-

KIDD CASTRO State Solicitor Roll No. 54185 IBP Lifetime Member No. 08750 MCLE Compliance No. IV0009081,11-13-12

Copy Furnished: by registered mail Atty. Rowell Calma Counsel for the Petitioner Calma Law Office, Room 205, 888 realty Bldg. Gen. Luna Cor. BalintawakSts., Laoag City The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Laoag City, IlocosNorte

EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 for the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Notice of Appearance is being filed and served by registered mail, personal filing and service not being practicable due to distance.

RENER CAFIRMA Senior State Solicitor

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x ORDER This treats of the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated July 22, 2014 dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction as the proof submitted by the petitioner of her residency is not sufficient. In her motion, she submitted a Certification issued by the Punong Barangay of Brgy. Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte to the effect that the petitioner since November 2013 has been resident of said barangay. She also submitted a Contract of Lease entered into by her and one Rose Madarang involving a room of a residential building in Brgy. Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilococ Norte. In the interest of substantial justice and finding the documents submitted as proof that she indeed is a resident of Brgy. Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Order dated July 22, 2014 is hereby SET ASIDE. Let summons be issued to the respondent. SO ORDERED. Given in chambers this 19th day of August 2014 at Laoag City, Ilocos Norte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

SUMMONS

TO: RICHARD C. GASPAR Brgy. San Ramon, Vintar IlocosNorte

You are hereby required within fifteen (15) days after service of this summons upon you, to file with this Court and serve on the plaintiff your answer to the complaint, copy of which is hereto attached, together with the annexes. You are reminded of the provision in the IBP-OCA Memorandum on Policy Guidelines dated March 12, 2002 to observe restraint in filing a motion to dismiss and instead allege the grounds thereof as defences in the Answer. If you fail to answer within the time fixed, the plaintiff will take judgement by default and may be granted the relief applied for in the complaint. WITNESS my hand under the seal of the Court, this 22nd day of August 2014, Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

JONAS CU Clerk of Court-IV

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13 FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x ORDER Considering that the respondent in the above-entitled case failed to submit his answer, the Provincial Prosecutor is hereby directed to conduct investigation to determine whether or not collusion exists.

The result of the investigation shall be submitted to this court within thirty (30) days from receipt of this order.

SO ORDERED. Given in chambers this 16th day of October 2014 at Laoag City, ILocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERRO GASPAR, Petitioner.

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13

-versus-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

MANIFESTATION

COMES NOW the undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor in the above-entitled case, most respectfully manifest that after a careful investigation conducted, the undersigned is of the honest belief that there is no collusion that exist between the parties.

RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED.

Laoag City, IlocosNorte, November 6, 2014.

KENNETH DOMINGO Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

NOTICE The Clerk of Court RTC Br. 11 Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings! Please submit the foregoing Manifestation to the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof for its kind consideration and approval.

KENNETH DOMINGO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13 FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

MOTION TO SET CASE FOR PRE-TRIAL

PETITIONER, thru the undersigned Honorable Court most especially states:

counsel,

unto

this

That on November 17, 2014, the undersigned received a copy of the manifestation filed by the Provincial Prosecutor KENNETH DOMINGO, stating that after a careful investigation conducted, he is of the honest belief that there exists NO collusion between the parties;

That considering further that the respondent in the aboveentitled case failed to submit his answer, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the instant case be set for PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE/PRE-TRIAL, preferably on December 4, 2014 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed to this Honorable Court that the above-entitled case set for preliminary conference/pre-trial on December 4, 2014 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning. Done this 17th day of November, 2014 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Counsel of the Petitioner Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

The Clerk of Court RTC-Branch 11, IlocosNorte Greetings! Please submit the foregoing motion immediately upon receipt hereof, for the consideration and approval of the Most Honorable Court.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished: By Personal service APP KENNETH DOMINGO OIC Provincial Prosecutor Marcos Hall of Justice, Laoag City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

-versus-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

Acting on the Motion To Set Case For Pre-Trial filed by the petitioner through counsel to the above-entitled case, the same is hereby granted.

Let the Pre-Trial Conference be set on December 4, 2014 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

SO ORDERED. Given in Chambers this 18th day of November 2014 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITYOF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court respectfully submits this Pre-trial brief, to wit:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by the petitioner FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR against respondent RICHARD C. GASPAR for their marriage is void from the beginning, because the respondent, at the time of the celebration of her marriage with the petitioner, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations, and such incapacity became manifest only after its solemnization.

FACTS OF THE CASE 1. Petitioner FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to herein respondent RICHARD C. GASPAR, and a resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City, IlocosNorte, where she has been residing for more than six (6) months prior to the filing of this petition, and where she may be served with summons, notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable Court; 2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to petitioner. He may be served with summons, notices, orders

and other processes of this Honorable Court at his last known address at Brgy. 5 San Ramon, Vintar, IlocosNorte, Philippines. 3. Petitioner and respondent tied the marital knot on March 28, 2009 at the Roman Catholic Parish of San Nicolas de Tolentino, Vintar, IlocosNorte; 4. Petitioner and respondent got to know each other in 2002 when they were still Criminology students. After a while of being classmates, respondent endeared himself to the petitioner by being a gentleman, thoughtful and sweet. Petitioner also admired respondent’s intelligence as well as his gift for words; 5. Eventually, the respondent started to show his admiration towards petitioner by formally courting the petitioner sometime in November 2002. Since the petitioner and respondent had a positive mutual feelings for each other, she accepted his love a month later; 6. Sex became a part of their relationship until the petitioner was impregnated by the respondent in 2003. Because of what happened, they decided to live together as husband and wife under a common law partnership with the consent of their parents; 7. Petitioner and respondent had two children out of wedlock. Their first child, Rosemarie Gaspar was born on March 15, 2004 while their second child Rhea Gaspar was born on May 5, 2005; 8. The petitioner and respondent continued their studies with the help of their parents. Respondent graduated in 2005 and passed the licensure examination in Criminology. Same is true with the petitioner. The respondent was hired as a policeman. His first assignment was at the National Capital Region; 9. Petitioner and respondent were supposed to be married during those times, but the petitioner began to have second thoughts in marrying her live-in partner because she observed unpleasant traits of the respondent. Respondent turned out to be grossly irresponsible as a head of the family. Instead of helping his wife, he preferred to stay out with his friends to have good time at almost every night and more often than not comes home early in the morning the following day. His unmindful ways persisted even with the presence of their two kids so much that fighting between the petitioner and respondent became a daily routine. The petitioner recounted that most of their arguments were triggered by his irresponsibility and

neglectful attitude. She also noticed that her husband was never close to his children, because he never made an effort in taking care of them; 10. Sometime in 2007, she started to notice that her partner was acting differently; 11. One time, the respondent arrived dead drunk, his cellular phone’s battery was drained. Petitioner charged the phone and after browsing its messages, she discovered a text message by a woman telling the respondent how thankful she was for dropping by. The petitioner got her number and started to set up a date with that woman at Jollibee the following morning. The petitioner also invited the respondent; 12. The following day, the three met in Jollibee and petitioner confirmed that the respondent had a nocturnal relationship with the other woman. The woman admitted that they have an affair. The respondent was speechless and could not say a word. The petitioner opted to address their problem calmly for she was already working as a police officer at that time. She opted to face her problems in silence. However, the respondent never showed any remorse of what he did. His infidelity persisted and neglected his duties as a husband. Sex became infrequent afterwards; 13. In the year 2009, the respondent suddenly made a wedding proposal to the petitioner. For her, she wanted to give him a second chance hoping that he will change into a better man in the future. She accepted his proposal and their wedding was set on March 28, 2009 and it was attended by close friends and relatives. After the ceremony, spouses went back to their respective assignments as police officers; 14. In 2011, respondent was assigned in IlocosNorte while petitioner was stationed in Antipolo, Rizal. He met an accident and killed two pedestrians. Fortunately, he was able to settle the case amicably with the victim’s family. When he went to Manila to pick up the settlement money from his wife, he arrived home drunk. He asked the petitioner that if ever he had another woman, would she forgive him. Before the petitioner would even answer him, he dozed off and slept; 15. On February 14, 2012, one of petitioner’s friends from IlocosNorteMarielle Calumag called petitioner asking her if she were in town. Marielle claimed that she saw petitioner’s husband at a food chain, but she was not sure if it was the petitioner that she saw for the girl seemed to be smaller than

her. The petitioner immediately confronted the respondent, but he told her that the girl he was with at that time was only a friend of his. She was not convinced so she took a vacation and went home to his husband to clarify things; 16. When she confronted him about the girl named Cherry, who was being linked to him since he was assigned in IlocosNorte, respondent told her that she is a councillor of Vintar, IlocosNorte and he used to escort her as a security official; 17. They tried to patch things up, but the respondent obviously lost his interest in his wife by his cold treatment. He often went out with his friends instead of spending time with his family. The petitioner tried to move on, but she continued to hear unpleasant information against her husband. His husband’s neglect of his marital obligations even became worse. He became verbally abusive towards her to a point of telling her that if only her parents were alive, he will return her to them. Respondent never changed his attitude. He remained indulgent to his infidelity; 18. His gross irresponsibility became a source of their fights and quarrels. He continued to have illicit relationships to different women. He never showed any drive to fulfil his obligations as a husband and father; 19. The worst thing that the petitioner discovered was the respondent having an affair with a married woman with children. They also have a joint account in a social network and she was able to read their secrets. For her it was signal that the respondent is no longer interested in their marriage. Petitioner was skin and bone after grieving from what she saw until she decided to work in IlocosNorte in 2012. Sometime in 2013, the respondent finally deserted his family and eloped with Cherry; 20. Petitioner never felt loved and never had any peace of mind since they were married. She was always been emotionally tormented on how her husband acted causing her sleepless nights. After those hurtful events in her marital life, petitioner came into a decision that she has to end her suffering from her doomed marriage. She experienced emotional torment throughout her marriage and believes that her marriage is beyond repair; 21. However, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is void from the beginning for the reason that at the time petitioner and respondent contracted marriage, respondent

was psychologically incapacitated to perform the marital obligations of marriage and such incapacity became manifest only after the celebration of their marriage; 22. Petitioner and respondent are obliged under the law to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support, materially, socially, and spiritually, but these are essential obligations of marriage which the respondent failed to observe and is incapable of performing or fulfilling: a. He is an avid partygoer, his friends and colleagues were his priority rather that his wife or his family life and children; b. He is disloyal, disrespectful and notorious unfaithful to his spouse; c. He is grossly irresponsible and habitually dishonest; d. He lacked remorse. Even if petitioner tried his best to bear respondent’s shortcomings as a husband, he has not done any move to change his ways or to ask an apology for his misdeeds; 23. The foregoing acts show that respondent was remiss in the performance of his marital obligations to render mutual help and support and to observe mutual love, respect and infidelity; 24. Respondent’s psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations appears to be grave, incurable and deeply-rooted as will be proven by a psychologist in the course of the proceedings;

25. Petitioner was constrained to file this action to free herself from the inequity of being bound by a marriage to a man who only cares for himself and has totally neglected his marital obligations to his wife; 26. Petitioner and respondent have no properties acquired during their marriage that may be subject of discussion.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS 1. The petitioner and respondent were married on 28 March 2009 as evidence by their NSO Marriage Certificate.

2. That Rosemarie Gaspar, their first child was born on March 15, 2004 as evidenced by her NSO Birth Certificate. 3. That Rhea Gaspar, their second child was born on May 5, 2005 as evidenced by his NSO Birth Certificate. 4. The petitioner and respondent did not acquire conjugal properties of their own. 5. The qualifications of Ms. Aurea Lucas as Psychologist and expert witness in her line of profession.

I S S U E/S 1. Whether or not either or both the petitioner and respondent suffer from psychological incapacity in accordance with the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code. 2. Whether or not their marriage is void from the beginning in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code.

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS “A”

- Certificate of Marriage

Purpose: To prove that the petitioner is married to the respondent on March 28, 2009. “B”

- Birth Certificate of Rosemarie Gaspar

Purpose: To prove the facts of the birth of their first child. “C”

- Birth Certificate of Rhea Gaspar

Purpose: To prove the facts of the birth of their second child. “D” -Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor General Purpose: To prove that the Solicitor General has entered his appearance. “D-1”- The delegation of the Provincial Prosecutor by the Solicitor General

Purpose: To prove that the Provincial Prosecutor has been duly deputized by the Solicitor General to appear in the above-cited case. “E to E-14”- Psychological Evaluation Report consisting of 15 pages. “E-15”- Signature of Aurea Lucas CommonPurpose: To prove that psychological evaluation and testing had been conducted by AUREA LUCAS, a psychologist by profession, upon the person of the petitioner; that after a series of psychological test, personal interview and collateral information, it was found out that the respondent, prior to and at the time of the celebration of her marriage to the petitioner, is psychologically incapacitated in fulfilling her marital obligations on the account of grave, deeply rooted and incurable NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY TRAITS. “F”- Letter Invitation to respondent Richard Gaspar “F-1”- Registry Receipt no. 4543. “F-2”- Registry Return Receipt Card Common Purpose: To prove that respondent was invited for psychological testing by Ms. Aurea Lucas. The petitioner reserves the right to mark additional exhibits during the trail and for good cause shown.

WITNESSES 1. FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR 2. AUREA LUCAS 3. ONE COLLATERAL WITNESS

APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE Pertinent provisions of the Family Code and other laws pertinent and relevant to the circumstances of the case as well as appropriate and relevant to the circumstances of the case as well as appropriate jurisprudence on the matter.

PROPOSED TRIAL DATES Any day convenient to the Most Honorable Court and to the parties.

Respectfully Submitted. Laoag City, IlocosNorte. December 1. 2014.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Counsel of the Petitioner Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

NOTICE

ATTY. JONAS CU Clerk of Court RTC-Branch 11 Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please submit this foregoing pre-trial brief for the kind consideration of this Most Honorable Court.

Thank you and more power.

ROWELL CALMA Copy furnished:

APP KENNETH DOMINGO OIC Provincial Prosecutor

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL ORDER

When the case was called for a pre-trial, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Kenneth Domingo appeared for the government while Atty. Rowell Calma for the petitioner. Whereupon, the parties entered into the following:

STIPULATIONS 1. That petitioner and respondent were married on March 28, 2009 as evidenced by their NSO Marriage Contract; 2. The existence, authenticity and due execution of the marriage certificate between the plaintiff and defendant is admitted; 3. That Rosemarie Gaspar, their first child, was born on March 15, 2004 as evidence by her NSO Birth Certificate; 4. The existence, authenticity and the due execution of the Birth Certificate of Rosemarie Gaspar is admitted; 5. That Rhea Gaspar, their second child, was born on May 5, 2005 as evidence by his NSO Birth Certificate;

6. The existence, authenticity and the due execution of the Birth Certificate of Rhea Gaspar is admitted;

7. The qualifications of Miss Aurea Lucas as psychologist and expert witness in her line of profession is admitted.

ISSUES 1. Whether or not either or both the petitioner and the respondent suffer from psychological incapacity in accordance with the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code; 2. Whether or not their marriage is void from the beginning in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code;

WITNESSES For the petitioner: 1. Frances Guerrero Gaspar 2. Aurea Lucas- the psychologist 3. One collateral witness

For the State: No witness. EXHIBITS For the petitioner: 1. Exhibit “A”- Certificate of Marriage 2. Exhibit “B”Birth Certificate of Grace Lei Alegado 3. Exhibit “C”- Birth Certificate of Lee Gareth Marumi 4. Exhibit “D”- Notice of Appearance of Solicitor General 5. Exhibit “D-1”- The delegation of the Provincial Prosecutor by the Solicitor General; 6. Exhibit “E” to “E-14”- Psychological Evaluation Report consisting of 15 pages; 7. Exhibit “E-15”- Signature of Gemma Marie Alhama; 8. Exhibit “F”- Letter invitation to respondent Orlando P. Marumi

9. Exhibit “F-1”- Registry Receipt No. 4523; 10. Exhibit “F-2”- Registry Return Receipt Card. The petitioner reserves the right to mark additional exhibits during the trial and for good cause shown.

For the State: No documentary exhibits.

TRIAL DATE December 11, 2014 at 8:30 o-clock in the morning.

The pre-trial is now deemed terminated. The parties are given five (5) days from receipt of the Pre-trial Order within which to suggest correction/s should they find any error/s therein. After said period, no amendment shall be allowed and the Pre-trial Order shall control the proceedings in the case. The parties and their respective counsels are notified of the scheduled date of hearing in open court which is considered non-transferable.

SO ORDERED. Given in open court this 4th day of December 2014 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

RL PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING CENTER Balintawak St. Laoag City

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR (Petitioner)

-versus-

RICHARD C. GASPAR (Respondent)

1. IDENTIFYING DATA Name Birthday Age Gender Birth Order Educational Attainment Occupation Name of Spouse Date of Marriage

: : : : : : : : :

Frances G. Gaspar 18 April 1982 32 years old Female 4th of 6 siblings College Graduate Police Officer Richard C. Gaspar March 28, 2009

2. REASON FOR REFERRAL For psychological testing and evaluation in relation to her petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage.

3. TEST ADMINISTERED Culture Fair Intelligence Test 16 Personality Factor Test Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test Draw-a-Person Test Draw a House-Tree-Person Test Marriage Sentence Completion Test

4. COLLATERAL INFORMATION 1. Document Review a. Marriage Certificate b. Birth Certificate c. Internet Sources 2. Collateral Informants a. Marielle Calumag- common friends of petitioner and the respondent b. Aira Sangalang-co-worker of petitioner c. 5. DATE OF EXAMINATION 17 May 2014 19 May 2014 20 May 2014 21 May 2014 6. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The petitioner of this case isFRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, a Filipino citizen, 32 years of age and a resident of Barangay 9-Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. She is a college degree holder of

Bachelor of Science in Criminology at Northwestern University. She is presently employed as a Police Officer at the Philippine National Police. The respondent of this case isRichard C. Gaspar, a native of Vintar, Ilocos Norte. Like the petitioner, he is also a graduate of Bachelor of Science in Criminology at Northwestern University and a Police Officer. He is presently living with another woman named Cherry with whom he has a common child. The petitioner and respondent have two children namely, Rosemarie and RheaGaspar. Their children are under the custody and care of the petitioner since the respondent abandoned his family. The petitioner is financially supporting her two children since her husband neglected them. The petitioner was born on the 18th day of April 1982 to spouses Leon and Teresita Alegado. She is the 4th among 5 broods. Her father was a good provider and a principled man. He was a disciplinarian and at the same time a loving man. Petitioner recounted that her parents had a harmonious relationships as husband and wife. They had interdependence to each other. Her mother was a nurturing wife who provided warmth and care to her children. The petitioner and her siblings had high regards to their father for he had inculcated to them good moral values when they were still young. Her mother played the role of a good mother and a submissive wife. She and her children were close to each other as she treated them in a loving and caring way. Petitioner’s parents are of both Ilocano descent. She remembers that her mother is in charge with the household and taught her to how to cook, wash the dishes and clean the house. Leah was exposed to a very challenging life due to financial difficulty when they were young. Nevertheless, they lived a simple but descent life. They were also raised to give due respect to one another regardless of their status in life. Frances attended Salbang Elementary School and graduated in 1995. She continued her secondary education at Mariano Marcos State University and finished it in 1999. Keeping her parents’ teachings in mind, she behaved in school and performed her best. She was quite active with all their school activities. She was average and she was able to graduate elementary on time. In the early part of her high school, the petitioner considered to take up a college degree. When Frances graduated in high school, she pursued a course in criminology and dreamed of becoming a police officer in the future.

She met the respondent, Richard Gaspar of this case in 2002. Better known as “Chad” by his friends, he is a computer technology graduate who took a second course in criminology. At that time, they were classmates in Chemistry. The petitioner and respondent got to know each other after a while of being classmates. The respondent impressed the petitioner of being a gentleman by his thoughtful and sweet ways. She also admired his intelligence as well as gift for words. Eventually, the respondent started to show his admiration towards her by formally courting the petitioner sometime in November 2002. Since the petitioner and respondent had a positive mutual feelings to each other, she accepted his love a month later. Sex became a part of their relationship until the petitioner was impregnated by the respondent in 2003. Because of what had happened, they decided to live together as husband and wife under a common law partnership with the consent of their parents. The petitioner gave birth to her first child, Rosemarie on Marh 15, 2004 and her second child Rhea was born on May 5, 2005. The petitioner and respondent continued their studies with the help of their parents. The respondent graduated in 2005 and passed his licensure examination in criminology. Same is true with the petitioner. The respondent was hired as a policeman. His first assignment was at the National Capital Region. The petitioner and respondent were supposed to get married during those times but the petitioner began to have a second thought in marrying his live in partner because she observed unpleasant traits of the respondent. For instance, he would piss her off by pinching her arms or her face when she was pregnant. They quarrelled every day because of misunderstandings. He is very irresponsible as indicated by his acts of non-cooperation in doing household chores. Instead of helping his wife, he prefers to stay out with his friends to have good times and comes home late of early in the morning the following day. His unmindful ways persisted even with the presence of their two kids and fighting between the petitioner and respondent became a daily routine. The petitioner recounted that most of their arguments were triggered by his irresponsibility and neglectful attitude. She also noticed that her husband was never close to his children because he never made an effort in taking care of them. Sometime in 2007, she started to notice that her husband is acting differently. One time, the respondent arrived dead drunk, his cellular phone’s battery was drained. She charged the phone and go curious with his inbox and to her surprise she discovered a text message telling the respondent how thankful she was for dropping by. The petitioner got her number and started to set her a date in Jollibee the following morning. The petitioner also invited him.

The following day, the three met in Jollibee and petitioner confirmed that the respondent had a nocturnal relationship with the other woman. The woman admitted that they have an illicit affair. The respondent was speechless and could not say a word. The petitioner made her statement and went home. The petitioner opted to address their problem with calm for she was already working as a police officer. She opted to face the problems in silence. However, the respondent never showed any remorse of what he did. His infidelity persisted and neglected his duties as a husband. Sex became infrequent afterwards. In 2009, the respondent suddenly made a wedding proposal to the petitioner. For her she wanted to give him a second chance hoping that he will change into a better man in the future. She accepted his proposal and their wedding was set on Mach 28, 2009 and it was attended by close friends and relatives. After the ceremony, the spouses went back to their respective post. The respondent was assigned in Ilocos Norte in 2011 while the petitioner remained in Antipolo, Rizal. He met an accident and killed two pedestrians. Fortunately, he was able to settle the case amicably with the victim’s family. When he went Manila to pick up the settlement money from his wife, he arrived home drunk. He asked the petitioner that if ever he had another woman, would she forgive him? Before the petitioner would even answer hi, he dozed off and slept. On February 14, 2012, one of her friends from Ilocos Norte called her asking if she were in town. Marielle Calumag claimed that she saw her husband in Mang Inasal but she was not sure if it was the petitioner that she saw for the girl seemed to be smaller than her. The petitioner immediately confronted the respondent but he told her that the girl was with at that time was only a friend of his. She was not convinced with his explanations so she took a vacation and went home to clarify things. When she confronted him about the girl named Cherry, who was being linked with him since he came home, he told her that she is a councillor of Vintar and he use to escort her officially. They tried to patch things up but the respondent obviously lost his interest to his wife by his cold treatment. He often goes out with his friends instead of spending time with his family. The petitioner tried to move on but she continued to hear unpleasant information against her husband. His husband neglect even became worst. He became verbally abusive towards her to a point of telling her that if only her parents were alive, he will return her to them. He never changed his attitude. He remained indulgent to his infidelity.

His gross irresponsibility became a source of their fights and quarrels. He continued to have illicit relationships to different women. He never showed any drive to make amends of his shortcomings. The worst thing that she discovered was he has an affair with a woman with children. They also have a joint account in facebook and she was able to read their secrets. For her it was a signal that the respondent is no longer interested in their marriage. Petitioner was skin and bone after grieving from what was she saw until she decided to work in Ilocos Norte in 2012. Sometime in 2013, he finally deserted his family and eloped with Cherry sometime in 2013. After those hurtful events in her marital life, petitioner came into a decision that she has to end her suffering from her doomed marriage. She experienced emotional torment through her marriage and believes that her marriage is already beyond repair. At this point in time, she already lost trust and confidence in her marriage, hence, this petition.

7. BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS Petitioner answered the questions candidly. She was very detailed in giving her answers but she was not able to recall the dates when the incidents happened. She maintained eye contact during the interview. Her face brightened up when she recalled her childhood and high school years. She became emotional in some parts of the interview especially when she narrated how she was maltreated by the respondent. She was very expressive that she greatly regrets that she gave the respondent so many chances. Her speech was clear and her sentence construction was organized. No strange behaviour was displayed during the sessions. Her mood was euthymic. She was cooperative in accomplishing the tasks assigned and executed them without difficulty. She was emotional in relating her stories especially with her marital life.

8. TEST RESULTS, RECOMMENDATION

INTERPRETATION,

AND

Petitioner obtained an IQ which is equivalent to 85. A score that is under average level. Her intellectual potential imply that she is capable to grasp and understand abstract reasoning. She has moderate potential in acquiring continued learning, and has the ability to make sound decisions in life. Marital distress and emotional trauma were noted in her protocol and in her clinical in-depth interviews. She emphasized on the undesirable qualities of her spouse and wishes

that her partner could have been more responsible, loving, and caring. She perceives him as a person who cannot fulfil his marital obligations because of his insensitive, selfish, and violent behavior. Fear and disgust from her husband is also manifested. She aspires for a bright future and her aggression is directed towards meeting her goals. Socially, she is moderately introverted. She may become selective in making close connections, a behavior that is correlated with her feelings of distrust with other people. Sexually, she identifies with the female gender and perceives the opposite sex as dominant. She may have difficulty in building up a future heterosexual relationship because of her traumatic experience with the respondent. Thus, her social dealings may become superficial or shallow in order to protect herself from being hurt again. She is cautious and guarded in dealing with other people especially to strangers. Denial, fantasy, and rationalization form part of her defensive mechanism. Based on the accounts of petitioner, her psychological protocol, and collateral information, it can be inferred that subject spouses developed Severe Partner Relational Problem during the span of their marriage. Respondent’s maladaptive behavior made their relationship became unstable. He is a person who cannot fulfil his marital obligations because of the manifestation of an underlying Personality Disorder specifically a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Antisocial Personality Traits. Respondent not only failed to fulfil his marital obligations but also failed to provide for a safe and comfortable environment to his family because of the pervasive manifestations of such disorder. NPD is a specified type of a personality disorder. It is characterized by a pervasive pattern of maladaptive thinking, feeling and behaving. It is developmental in nature. Generally, people with NPD refuse treatment because they do not recognize the fact that they have a problem. Yet they often create problem to other people. They are preoccupied with their belief of great success and beauty. Their relationships are disturbed by malignant self-love and feelings of envy. To satisfy their Narcissistic needs, they tend to seek out other with whom they can be exploit but never allows anyone to be generally close to them. Narcissists’ personal relationships are few and when their expectations are not met, they may become angry and rejecting (Abnormal Psychology, 8th Ed. Davidson and Neale). Narcissists are impulsive and do not take into consideration the probable consequences of their actions. They are also dismissive of other people’s concern, feelings. In the case of respondent, he

perceives his marriage as a blockage of his personal objectives and strong need for autonomy and emancipation. As a result, he tends to be unconcerned, ignoring, insensitive, and neglectful in fulfilling the demands of his present marriage. He believes that her head over heels in love with him and that she would give everything to him in spite of his harsh treatment towards her. His selfish or egocentric prevented him from reciprocating the love of her wife and him. His persistent infidelity hindered him to become responsible husband nor a fully functioning individual. He failed to understand and fulfil the essential marital obligations that his wife deserves during the course f their marriage. The petitioner was emotionally abused and deprived economically for long time. For a long time, she has been psychologically tormented. Her horrible experiences still haunts her causing her sleepless nights even at present. In spite of petitioner’s effort in building a meaningful relationships, respondent never turned into a better man. He continued to manifest maladaptive behaviors. He failed to give meaning and significance to their marriage because of his personality disorder. From all indications, the nature of respondent’s psychological incapacity is grave, incurable, and deep-rooted and would persist over time. Therefore, it is recommended that this petition for declaration of nullity and marriage be granted.

Prepared by:

AUREA LUCAS Psychologist

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13 FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF PSYCHOLOGIST, AUREA LUCAS

I, AUREA LUCAS, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single and a resident of Brgy. 19, Laoag City, Philippines, after having duly sworn to in accordance with the law, do hereby voluntarily submits myself for examination before ATTY. ROWELL CALMA at his law office located at the 2nd Floor 888 Realty Bldg. Balintawak Cor Gen. Luna, 2900 Laoag City, Ilocos Norte Philippines and that I will answer all the questions being asked duly conscious that I am under oath and I may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

Q1: Do you know the FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, the petitioner in this case? A1: Yes sir. Q2: Why do you know her? A2: She was referred to me for psychological testing and evaluation sir. Q3: What was the reason for the referral? A3: The referral was in relation to her petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity sir. Q4: Did you conduct a psychological examination and evaluation upon the petitioner, FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR? A4: Yes, Sir.

Q5: How about the respondent, RICHARD C. GASPAR, did you happen to interview him? A5: No sir. In spite of the invitation made by yours truly, he failed to appear for the scheduled session sir. Q6: What was the purpose of the psychological evaluation Madam witness? A6: The primary purpose of the psychological evaluation was to determine if there is psychological incapacity on either or both of the parties in fulfilling their basic marital obligation sir. Q7: What is your basis in making the Psychological Evaluation Report upon the petitioner? A7: Clinical in-depth interviews were conducted upon the petitioner, a battery of psychological tests were administered, and interviews from collateral informants sir. Q8: You mentioned of a series of psychological test that you administered upon the petitioner, what are these psychological tests? A8: The following are the test given to the petitioner, Culture Fair Intelligence Test, Bender- Visual Motor Gestalt Test, A 16 Personality Trait Test, Draw a Person test, Draw a House-Tree Person Test and Marriage Sentence Completion Test. Q9: What is the purpose of these psychological tests? A9: The purpose of the battery of tests are the following: for the Culture Fain Intelligence Test, it is to determine the baseline IQ of the client; the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test is to determine if there is a cranial damage on the part of the client, while the other tests are kind of projective tests where the affective, rational, behavioral aspects of the individual is being drawn especially those that are not readily observable in ordinary situation. Q10: You also mentioned of clinical in-depth interview with the petitioner, what is the purpose of this interview? A10: It is a structured set of questions that will gather essential information relating to the marital life of the parties involved and other data necessary to the case study. Q11: Again you mentioned that you interviewed collateral informants, what is the purpose of these interviews made upon by collateral informants? A11: This is also a procedure to gather data coming from the viewpoint of common friends, relatives and other persons who can provide information regarding the relationship or marital life of the subject clients particularly because respondent did not appear for the interview despite my invitations to her.

Q12: After a series of psychological tests, the clinical in-depth interviews and the interviews you made upon collateral informants, what were your findings? A12: No dysfunction in the areas of functioning was noted on the petitioner sir. However, it has been found that the psychological incapacity of the respondent is grave, incurable and deeply-rooted and it would persist over time. Q13: What are your findings upon the respondent Madam witness? A13: The result shows that the respondent is psychologically incapacitated in fulfilling his marital obligations sir. On the other hand, the petitioner’s psychologically capacitated in fulfilling the same sir. Q14: What is the psychological incapacity of respondent that you found in your evaluation? A14: The respondent is a person who is suffering from a Personality Disorder sir, specially a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Q15: Will this psychological incapacity of respondent affect his capacity to perform his marital obligations? A15: Yes sir. Q16: Was that Psychological Evaluation Report you made upon reduced into writing? A16: Yes sir. Q17: Is this the Psychological Evaluation Report attached to your Judicial Affidavit and which I am marking as Exhibit “E”? A17: Yes sir. Q18: In layman’s term, can you explain this psychological incapacity if the respondent? A18: The psychological incapacity of the respondent is accounted for by the pervasive manifestation of his personality disorder. As I said a while ago, he possesses a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. People with this kind of disorder have problematic relationships because of their unstable personality. It is pervasive and developmental in nature. Q19: Did this personality disorder of respondent affect the marriage of the subject petitioner and respondent? A19: Yes sir. Q20: In what way? Will you explain that to the Honorable Court? A20: Since a Narcissistic Person like that of the respondent is selfcentred and they do not feel any remorse whenever they violate the rights of other people. They are also exploitative and tend to become demeaning and abusive to people who are close to them. Hence, if

married, marital instability is expected because of the characterological problem. Subject spouses developed Partner Relational Problem during the course of their marriage that led to their final separation. This problem is a result of the unstable relationship and psychological incapacity of the respondent in understanding and fulfilling her marital obligations. Q21: In your opinion as an expert, what is the severity of the psychological incapacity of the respondent? A21: It is grave, deeply-rooted and incurable sir. Q22: Will you cite some instances during the marriage of petitioner and respondent wherein these psychological incapacity of respondent was manifested? A22: Even prior to the marriage, the respondent already displayed neglectful attitude in dealing with the petitioner. He was passive and never showed any expression of support or affection towards the petitioner. He acted like a single person and never showed any concern about his family. In fact, it was always the petitioner who exerted effort in building their family because of his evasive character. He does not confront or face any marital issue, instead he would avoid the petitioner leaving her hanging most of the times. When his wife discovered his involvement with another woman, he never exhibited any remorse. She forgave him but he continued with his indiscretions. Eventually, he slowly evaded the petitioner and their child and made it obvious that he is no longer interested with the petitioner and to his family. His infidelity persisted until he is no longer ashamed with his infidelity. Frances discovered that the respondent and his girlfriend from Vintar have a joint Facebook account. At present, respondent is now living with another woman, and never gave any support to his family. Q23: Why do you say that it is grave? A23: It is grave because the disorder impaired the affective and rational functioning of the subject respondent sir. Q24: Why do you say that it is deep-rooted? A24: It is deeply-rooted because, the Personality Disorder is already embedded to the personality of the individual which is already crystallized at this point in time sir. Q25: Why do you say that it is incurable? A25: It is incurable because up to the present, there is no known drug to extinguish in Personality Disorder. Q26: In your opinion, Madame, will not this psychological incapacity of the respondent be cured by clinical methods?

A26: No sir. Q27: Why? A27: Since the primary feature of the disorder is that the person who suffers from it does not recognize the problem, hence, they do not seek any intervention to manage their behavior. They deny that they have a problem but they are not aware that they create problems to other people most specialty to those who are close to them sir. Q28: Did you execute a written statement in connection with this case? A28: Yes sir. Q29: Is this the same statement you are referring to? A29: Yes sir. Q30: In your opinion as an expert, will a person suffering from psychological incapacity like the respondent still be able to maintain marital relationships with another person not the petitioner? A30: There is no guarantee sir. Q31: Why? A31: Because the manifestation of his Personality Disorder may surface out at any point in time sir. Q32: with? A32:

What kind of personality will the respondent be able to relate There is no specific personality sir.

Q33: If you were able to interview the respondent in this case, will your findings be different? A33: My findings will still be the same sir. Q34: Why? A34: Because the responses of the respondent will affirm the accounts of the petitioner and other collateral information.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of January, 2015, in the City of Laoag, Philippines.

AUREA LUCAS Affiant

ATTESTATION I, ATTY. ROWELL CALMA, under oath, hereby attest that I have faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I asked and the corresponding answers that she gave, and that neither I nor any other person then present or assisting him/her coached the witness regarding the latter’s answers.

ROWELL CALMA Roll No. 1234-4 Issued by the IBP

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21st day of January, 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his Roll of Attorneys ID Card indicated below his name and signature, and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed this Attestation.

Doc. No.: ___ Page No.: ___ Book No.: ___ Series of: ___

ATTY. LIZ R. DOMINGO Notary Public Until December 31, 2014 Roll No.1476-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123986-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7632451-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV0006659, June 26, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER After the completion of the testimony Clinical Psychologist Aurea Lucas, a continuance is hereby granted for the presentation of other witness(es) for the petitioner.

The continuation of the trial is hereby set on February 12, 2015 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

SO ORDERED. Given in open court this 26th day of January 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, FRANCES GUERREREO GASPAR, 32 years of age, married, a Police Officer 2, and a resident of Brgy. 9- Sta. Angela, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with the law, do hereby depose and state that:

The person taking my judicial affidavit is ATTY. ROWELL CALMA taken at his law office namely CALMA LAW OFFICE located at Room 205, 888 Bldg., Gen. Luna cor. Balintawak Sts., Laoag City.

I am answering the following questions propounded to me to the best of my knowledge of the true facts and circumstances, and that I may be held criminally liable for false testimony or perjury:

PURPOSE OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS This Judicial Affidavit of FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, the petitioner in this case, is executed to serve as her direct testimony in this petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. This Judicial Affidavit is being offered to prove the following: 1. All the material allegations in the petition and the circumstances that transpired with constrained the petitioner

to file this petition for Declaration of against the herein respondent; 2. The facts and circumstances that manifestations of the psychological respondent before, during, and after marriage of the parties;

Nullity of Marriage would show the incapacity of the the celebration of

3. All other matters, facts and circumstances related to this case. She will also be presented for the purpose of identifying some documents relative hereto.

1. Q : Madam, Witness are you same Frances Guerrero Gaspar, the petitioner in this case? A : Yes sir. 2. Q : And how are you related to the respondent Richard C. Gaspar? A : He is my husband, sir. 3. Q : When and where did you marry him? A : We got married on March 28, 2009 in Vintar, Ilocos Norte, sir. 4. Q : Do you have any documentary proof of your marriage? A : Yes, we have a Marriage Certificate, and it is attached to my petition as Annex “A”, sir. 5. Q : If that marriage certificate you are referring to will be shown to you, will you be able to recognize the same? A : Yes sir. 6. Q : I am showing you a marriage certificate, is this the one you are referring to? A : Yes, sir. 7. Q : I am marking this marriage certificate as Exhibit “A” and attach the same to your judicial affidavit, do you confirm my action? A : Yes, sir. 8. Q A

: Do you have a child or children with your husband? : Yes, sir.

9. Q

: How many and what are their names and ages?

A : We have two (2) children, ROSEMARIE GASPAR, 10 years old, and RHEA GASPAR, 9 years old, sir.

10. Q : Do you have proof that indeed they are your children? A : Yes sir, I have their Birth Certificates attached to my petition as Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively. 11. Q : If those birth certificates you are referring to will be shown to you, will you be able to recognize the same? A : Yes, sir. 12. Q : I am showing you the birth certificate of Rosemarie and Rhea, are these the documents you are referring to? A : Yes, sir. 13. Q : I am marking the birth certificate of Rosemarie Gaspar as Exhibit “B” and the birth certificate of Rhea Gaspar as Exhibit “C”, and attach the same to your judicial affidavit, do you confirm my action? A : Yes, sir. 14. Q : When and where did you meet your husband? A : I met him sometime in 2002 at Laoag City, sir. We were then both Criminology students at Northwestern University. He courted me and he became my boyfriend sir. 15. Q : For how long did he court you before he became your boyfriend? A : He courted me for a month, sir. He started courting me in November 2002. 16. Q : After you and respondent became sweethearts, how do you describe your relationship with him? A : Things got fast because sex instantly became a part of our relationship. I got pregnant in 2003, sir. 17. Q : Did you then stop your relationship with him because of this? A : No, sir, we continued our relationship. Because of what had happened, we decided to live together as husband and wife under a common law partnership with the consent of our parents. After the birth of our first child in 2004, I got pregnant again. I gave birth to our second child the following year. We also both graduated in 2005. 18. Q

: After your graduation what had happened next, if any?

A : We both passed our licensure examination in criminology sir. He was hired as a policeman and was assigned at the National Capital Region. We were supposed to get married during those times, but I began to have second thought in marrying him, because I observed his unpleasant traits. We quarrelled every daybecause of misunderstandings. He turned out to be grossly irresponsible as a head of the family. Instead of helping me, he preferred to stay out with his friends to have good time at almost every night and more often than not comes home early in the morning the following day. His unmindful ways persisted even with the presence of our two kids, so much so that fighting between us became a daily routine. Most of our arguments were triggered by his irresponsibility and neglectful attitude. I also noticed that he was never close to our children, because he never made an effort in taking care of them. 19. Q : What else transpired during your span of time if any? A : Sometime in 2007, I started to notice that he was acting differently. Unlike before, he had turned cold and indifferent towards me when we were living in Calamba, Laguna sir. I felt he was doing something not right. I was then correct. 20. Q : Why do you say so? A : One time, he arrived dead drunk, his cellular phone’s battery was drained. I charged his phone and after browsing its messages, I discovered a text message by a woman telling him how thankful she was for dropping by. I got her number and started to set up a date with that woman at Jollibee the following morning. I also invited my husband. 21. Q : What happened next? A : The following day, the three of us met at a Jollibee branch and I have confirmed that he had a nocturnal relationship with the other woman. The woman admitted that they have an affair. I also discovered that she was a saleslady from Laguna. My husband was speechless and could not say a word. I opted to address the situation calmly for I was already working as a police officer at that time. I wanted to save my face so I opted to face my marital problems in silence. However, my husband never showed any remorse of what he did. His fidelity persisted and neglected his duties as a husband. Sex became infrequent afterwards. 22. Q : So did you break up with him after that? A : No sir. I still give him another chance to save our relationship. 23. Q

: What then happened next?

A : I forgave him sir. We continued our relationship. In the year 2009, he suddenly made a wedding proposal to me. I wanted to give him a second chance hoping that he will change into a better man in the future. I accepted his proposal and our wedding was set on March 28, 2009 and it was attended by close friends and relatives. After the ceremony, we went back to our respective assignments as police officers. 24. Q A

: Did he change into a better man, then? : Yes, but not for long, sir.

25. Q : Why do you say that? A : In 2011, he was assigned in Ilocos Norte while I was stationed in Antipolo, Rizal. He met an accident and killed two pedestrians. Fortunately, he was able to settle the case amicably with the victim’s family. When he went to Manila to pick up the settlement money from me, he arrived home drunk. He asked me that if ever he had another woman, would I forgive him. But before I could even answer him, he dozed off and slept, sir. His remarks puzzled me and made me to think that he might be having another affair again. I was right again for the second time, sir. 26. Q : How is that so? A : On February 14, 2012, one of my friends from Ilocos Norte, MARIELLE CALUMAG, called me asking me if I were in town. Janice claimed that she saw my husband at a food chain, but she was not sure if it was me who was with my husband, because the girl she saw seemed to be smaller than me. I then immediately confronted my husband, but he told me that the girl he was with at the time was only a friend of his. I was not convinced with his explanations so I took a vacation and went home to Ilocos Norte to clarify things. 27. Q : What happened next if any? A : I went home to Ilocos Norte, sir. When I confronted him about the girl named Cherry, who was being linked to him since he was assigned in Ilocos Norte, he told me that she is a councillor of Vintar, Ilocos Norte and he used to escort her as a security officially. 28. Q : What happened after that? A : I tried to patch things up, but he obviously lost his interest in me by his cold treatment. He often went out with his friends instead of spending time with his family. I tried to move on, but I continue to hear unpleasant information against my husband. My husband’s neglect of his marital obligations even became worse. He became verbally abusive towards me to a

point of telling me that if only my parents were still alive, he will return me to them. He never changed his attitude. He remained indulgent to his infidelity and vices.

29. Q : He never stopped doing those things despite your confrontation? A : No sir. His gross irresponsibility became a source of our fights and quarrels. He continued to have illicit relationships to other women. He never showed any drive to fulfil his obligations as a husband and father. 30. Q : What else did you find out if any? A : The worst thing I discovered was having an affair with a married woman with children. They also have a joint account in a social network and I was able to read their secrets. For me, it was a signal that he is no longer interested in our marriage. I was skin and bone after grieving from what I saw until I decided to work in Ilocos Norte in 2012. 31. Q : Are you still living with him? A : No more, sir. Sometime in 2013, he finally deserted me and our children and eloped with Cherry. 32. Q : How would you describe your marital life with the respondent then as a whole? A : Very tragic sir. I never felt I was loved and never had any peace of mind since we lived together until we were married. I had always been emotionally tormented on how my husband acted, causing me sleepless nights. After those hurtful events in our marital life, I came into a decision that this is the time to end my sufferings from my doomed marriage. I experienced emotional torment throughout our marriage and I do believe that our marriage is already beyond repair. 33. Q : Under whose custody then are your children? A : They are with me sir. If I am assigned to a different place, I leave them to my older brother, Villamor Guerrero, in Paoay, Ilocos Norte. 34. Q : After telling of these, what do you pray then of this Honorable Court? A : I pray that the Honorable Court will consider my plea to have this marriage declared null and void, as my husband, as shown by his acts of neglecting and abandoning me and our children in favour of another woman, among others, cannot perform his basic marital obligations and as a responsible father to our children, sir.

35. Q A

: Do you have common properties for dissolution? : None, sir.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affix my signature this 6th day of February, 2015 at Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines.

FRANCES G. GASPAR PRC License No. 0030649 Issued by PRC Expiry: April 18, 2017

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of February, 2015 at Laoag City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her identification card indicated below her name and signature as competent proof of her identity.

Doc. No. : __ Page No.: __ Book No.: __ Series of ___

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Notary Public Until December 31, 2014 Roll No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV0006479, June 26, 2012

ATTESTATION

I, ATTY. ROWELL CALMA, under oath, hereby attest that I have faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I asked and the corresponding answers that the witness gave, and that neither I nor any other person then present or assisting her coached the witness regarding the latter’s answers.

ROWELL CALMA Roll of Attorneys No. 1234-4 Issued by the IBP

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before this 6th day of February, 2015 at Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his proof of identity below his name and signature, and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed this Attestation.

Doc. No.: ___ Page No.: ___ Book No.: ___ Series of: ___

ATTY. LIZ R. DOMINGO Notary Public Until December 31, 2014 Roll No.1476-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123986-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7632451-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV0006659, June 26, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

When this case was called for hearing, OIC Provincial Prosecutor KENNETH DOMINGO appeared for the government while Atty. Rowell Calma is not in court because his mom was hospitalized. The hearing is thus cancelled and reset to April 20, 2015 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

SO ORDERED. Given in open court this 23rd day of March 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

In view that the Presiding Judge was on sick leave yesterday February 12, 2015, the hearing is thus cancelled and re-set to February 26, 2015 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.

SO ORDERED. Given in chambers this 13th day of February 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, PO1 AIRA SANGALANG, 25 years of age, single, police woman, and a resident of Brgy. 3, Bacarra, ILocosNorte, Philippines, after having been duly sworn in accordance with the law, do hereby depose and state that: The person taking my judicial affidavit is Atty. ROWELL CALMA taken at his law office at Calma Law Office, Rm. 205 888 Realty Bldg., Gen. Luna cor. Balintawak St., Laoag City, Philippines; I am answering the following questions propounded to me to the best of my knowledge of the true facts and circumstances, and that I may be held criminally liable for false testimony or perjury. Q-1 Do you know FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, the petitioner in this case? A-1 Yes sir. Q-2 How do you know her? A-2 She is a friend of mine sir. Q-3 How about the respondent RICHARD C. GASPAR do you know him? Q-3 Yes sir, he is the husband of Frances. Q-4 How long have you known them as couple? A-4 Since their marriage in 2009 sir.

Q-5 And how do you describe their marital life? A-5 From what I have personally witnessed and known, their life as couple is doomed from the very beginning. They have severe marital problems, sir. Q-6 When you say severe marital problems, what problems in particular do you mean? A-6 The womanizing ways of the respondent and his total disregard of his responsibilities as husband and father led to their separation, sir. Q-7 You mean to say you are well aware that they are already separated from each other? A-7 Yes sir. They no longer live together as couple since 2013. Q-8 And how did you know that, if I may ask? A-8 As a close friend of the petitioner, I witnessed personally how Frances suffered from their marriage, sir. I sometimes accompany Frances in tracing the whereabouts of her husband when he does not come home. She also opens up to me regarding her marital problems. Q-9 Why did you say that their marriage was doomed from the beginning? A-9 The respondent already showed no signs that he will be a responsible family man and his propensity to be involved with severe girls even before they got married, sir. Q-10 Despite of this, the petitioner went on to marry the respondent? A-10 Yes sir. She married him over our objection as her friends. Frances hoped and wanted him to change into a better man once they are already married. Unfortunately, respondent became worse, sir. They quarrel always right after their marriage. Q-11 Do you know the reason for their quarrels? A-11 Yes, sir. Respondent is always out at night leaving his family. He is always out with friends, drinking and womanizing. He even make as an excuse his job as policeman just to be able to go out. For the times that Frances caught Richard with other women, she always gave him a chance to change but he never did. Q-12 Was Frances able to prove that her husband is into an illicit affair with other women?

A-12 Yes, sir. I and Frances saw it personally. Respondent confessed to it. Our other friends from IlocosNorte also saw it, sir. Q-13 Aside from these, what else do you know? A-13 Frances also discovered that respondent is involved with a married woman with children, sir. This was extra painful to Frances because it happened after respondent told Frances that he will stop seeing other women. It became a vicious cycle, sir. Q-14 And what happened after that? A-14 In 2013, respondent left Frances and their two children, sir. Q-15 What did Frances do? A-15 It took her some time to recover, sir. Then she made a decision to file this annulment case. Q-16 As a friend, are you in favor of the annulment of their marriage? A-16 Yes sir. Frances did everything she could to save their marriage, but Richard did not do his part. He went on with his womanizing and irresponsible ways. He neglected his family without any sign of remove, sir. Frances must also move on with a new life. Q-17 Do you have other things to say? A-17 No more, sir.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this 20 day of April, 2015 at Laoag City, Philippines. th

PO1 AIRA SANGALANG Affiant PNP ID No. 12E230298 Valid Until 7/7/2015 SUBCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of April, 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her PNP ID indicated below her name and signature as competent proof of her identity, and I am satisfied that she understood and voluntarily executes this judicial affidavit. Doc. No. : __ Page No.: __ Book No.: __

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Notary Public Until December 31, 2014

Series of ___ Roll No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV0006479, June 26, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-13 FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x ORDER When this case was called for hearing, OIC Provincial Prosecutor Kenneth Domingo appeared for the government while Atty. Rowell Calma for the petitioner. PO1 AiraSangalang was presented to the witness stand. Her testimony is finally completed and terminated. Considering the manifestation of Atty. Calma that she is the last witness for the petitioner, he thus prayed that he be given a period of fifteen (15) days from today to submit the written formal offer of exhibits. Finding the herein motion to be impressed with merit, the same is hereby granted. Thus, the petitioner thru counsel is directed to submit the written formal offer of exhibits within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Order and the same number of days is likewise is accorded the prosecution to submit its comment or opposition thereto. After which, this case shall be deemed submitted for resolution. SO ORDERED. Given in open court this 4th day of May 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

When this case was called for hearing, OIC Provincial Prosecutor Kenneth Domingo appeared for the government while Atty. Rowell Calma for the petitioner.

Considering the manifestation of Atty. Calma that his intended witness would not come to and without objection on the part of the trial prosecutor, the hearing is thus cancelled and re-set to May 04, 2015 at 8:30 in the morning.

SO ORDERED. Given in open court this 20th day of April 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Most Honorable Court, respectfully offers the following documentary exhibits of the petitioner: Exhibit “A” – Certificate of Marriage; Purpose: To prove that the petitioner is married to the respondent and as part of the testimony of Petitioner; Exhibit “B” – Birth Certificate of ROSEMARIE GASPAR; Purpose: To prove the fact of the birth of their first child and as part of the testimony of the Petitioner; Exhibit “C”- Birth Certificate of RHEA GASPAR; Purpose: To prove the fact of the birth of their second child and as part of the testimony of Petitioner; Exhibit “D”- Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor General; Purpose: To prove that the Solicitor General has entered his appearance;

Exhibit “D-1” – The delegation of the Provincial Prosecutor by the Solicitor General; Purpose: To prove that the Provincial Prosecutor has been duly deputized by the Solicitor General to appear in the above-cited case; Exhibits “E” to “E-14”- Psychological Evaluation Report; Exhibit “E-15”- Signature of AUREA LUCAS (psychologist); Common Purpose: To prove that psychological evaluation and testing had been conducted by AUREA LUCAS, a psychologist by profession, upon the person of the petitioner; that after a series of psychological test, personal interview and collateral information, it was found out that the respondent prior to and at the time of the celebration of her marriage to the petitioner, is psychologically incapacitated in fulfilling her marital obligations on the account of grave, deeply rooted and incurable NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH AVOIDANT PERSONALITY FEATURES, and as part of the testimony of Aurea Lucas. Exhibit “F”- Letter Invitation to respondent Richard Gaspar; Exhibit “F-1”- Registry Receipt No. 1123; Exhibit “F-2”- registry Return Receipt Card; Common Purpose: To prove that respondent was invited for psychological testing by Ms. Aurea Lucas but has failed to come and as part of the testimony of Ms. Lucas.

WHEREFORE, with formal offer of the foregoing exhibits for the purposes for which they are offered, and with the testimonies of the petitioner and his witnesses, and praying for their admission by the Most Honorable Court, the petitioner respectfully rests its case.

Laoag City, IlocosNorte, Philippines. May 14, 2015.

ROWELL CALMA Counsel for the Petitioner Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

NOTICE

THE CLERK OF THE COURT RTC-Branch 11 Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings! Please submit the foregoing formal offer of evidence, the corresponding exhibits duly attached to the record, immediately upon receipt hereof forthe consideration and approval of the Most Honorable Court.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished by personal service: APP KENNETH DOMINGO OIC Provincial Prosecutor Marcos Hall of Justice, Laoag City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERRERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

Acting on the formal offer of exhibits of the petitioner through counsel, Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and their sub-markings are hereby admitted for the purpose for which they offered and as part of the testimony of the witnesses who identified the same during the course of the trial.

The case is deemed submitted for resolution.

SO ORDERED. Given in chambers this 19th day of May 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION (To the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 24, 2015)

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Most Honorable Court, most respectfully submits her Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 24, 2015, to wit: That the Motion for Reconsideration seeks to reconsider an Order of the Most Honorable Court dated June 18, 2015 and eventually be set aside; That in opposition thereto, the Order of the Most Honorable Court dated June 18, 2015 must stand as the said Order is in consonance with logic and law; That indeed, the Most Honorable Court was correct in issuing said Order as could be viewed from the following: 1. That the finding of the Honorable Court in its Decision, “In this case, considering that a personality disorder is manifested in a pattern of behavior, self-diagnosis by the respondent consisting only in his bare denial of the doctor’s separate diagnoses does not necessarily evoke credence and cannot trump the clinical findings of experts.In this case, the court is convinced that the facts alleged in this petition, the evidence and with the witnesses presented

considered in their totality, satisfactorily establish that the respondent’s acts amount to enumerate a severe psychological incapacity which incapacitated him to perform his essential marital obligations as a husband. …In the case at bar, the court concurs with the findings of the clinical psychologist which confirms the gravity, incurability and judicial antecedence of the respondent’s psychological incapacity. It was clinically explained supported by testimonies of the petitioner and collateral informant why the Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Antisocial Personality Traits of the respondent is grave enough that it rendered the marriage broken and beyond repair. The petitioner was able to provide convincing and believable evidence to accurately establish the personality disorders of the respondent.” Rightly, the Honorable Court Ruled that respondent’s psychological incapacity roots from his extreme irresponsibility towards his obligations to his wife and to his children, and is blatant infidelity. What the court allows to be dissolved are marriages which are unfixable due to one or both partner’s permanent disability.”

2. The Most Honorable Court properly applied the case of Azcueta vs. Republic of the Philippines and Court of Appeals, in the instant case, the court is inclined to grant the petition. It is wisely stated therein, to wit: “In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological incapacity, the court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that secret bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug independence or addiction, and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality anomaly. Let it be noted that in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning to indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.” That the Most Honorable Court properly applied the Molina case in ruling that, “The requisites brought in by the Court in the Molina case has been sufficiently complied in this case considering the presence and detailed pronouncement of the petitioner and

his collateral informant during their interview with the psychologist. Respondent was found to be suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder ( NPD ) with Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits, a grave, deeply rooted and incurable condition that enables him to develop traits to the detriment of her marital relationship. The psychologist was present and was able to explain well on the personality disorder of the respondent. This goes well with the necessity of presenting an expert testimony on the matter, pursuant to the High Court’s pronouncement, thus: “Expert testimony should have been presented to establish the precise cause of private respondent’s psychological incapacity, if any, in order to show that it existed at the inception of the marriage. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests upon petitioner. The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favour of the validity of the marriage. “ (Hernandez vs Court of Appeals, 320 SCRA 76, December 8, 1999)

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the foregoing Comments and Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration be considered and the Motion for Consideration be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted.

Laoag City, Philippines. June 29, 2015.

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Counsel for the Petitioner Roll of Attorney’s No.1234-4/30/2008 IBP No. 123456-I.N. 1/3/14 PTR No. 7654321-I.N. 1/3/14 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006479, June 26, 2012

NOTICE

The Clerk of Court RTC Branch 11, Laoag City, IlocosNorte

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing Comment/Opposition for the Motion for Reconsideration immediately upon receipt hereof for the consideration of the Most Honorable Court.

Thank you.

ROWELL CALMA

Copy furnished by personal service: APP KENNETH DOMINGO OIC provincial Prosecutor Marcos Hall of Justice, LAoag City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, respectfully states: 1. On June 30, 2015, the undersigned counsel received a copy of the Decision dated June 18, 2015 granting the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: “IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby GRANTED as Judgement is hereby rendered declaring the marriage contracted by petitioner, Frances Guerrero Gaspar to respondent, Richard C. Gaspar Solemnized on March 28, 2009, NULL and VOID pursuant to Article 30 Of the Family Code. xxx xxx xxx SO ORDERED.” 2. The trial court granted the petition and ruled on the existence of respondent’s psychological incapacity based on the information imparted by the petitioner, petitioner’s collateral informant and her expert witness. 3. It is respectfully submitted that contrary to the ruling of the trial court, petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the existence of psychological incapacity on the part of the respondent.

4. In Republic vs. Laila Tanyag San-Jose, the Supreme Court rules: Undoubtedly, the doctor’s conclusion is hearsay. It is “unscientific and unreliable” so this Court declared in Choa v. Choa where the assessment of the therein party sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated was based merely in the information communicated to the doctor by the therein respondent spouse: . . . The assessment of the petitioner by Dr. Gauzon wa based merely on descriptions communicated to him by respondents. The doctor never conducted any psychological examination of her. Neither did he ever claim to have done so. In fact, his Professional Opinion began with the statement “ [I]f what Alfonso Choa said about his wife Lenny is true, . . .” xxx xxx xxx Obviously, Dr. Gauzon had no personal knowledge of the facts he testified to, as these has merely been relayed to him by respondent. The former was working on pure suppositions and second hand information fed to him by one side. Consequently, his testimony can be dismissed as unscientific and unreliable. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 5. Similarly, the expert opinion was merely based on the representations made by petitioner and her friend PO1 Aira Sangalang to establish respondent’s psychological incapacity. Petitioner’s and that of her friend’s testimonies are self-serving and are trained with bias. In the absence of sufficient corroboration, the testimony and findings of the expert witness is unreliable. 6. Moreover, the behavioral manifestations of respondent’s alleged personality disorder do not support the existence of psychological incapacity. In fact, infidelity, irresponsible, loss of love and abandonment, and other more serious behavior like physical and verbal abuse per se were not considered as grave or serious so as to equate to psychological incapacity. 7. The Supreme Court has ruled that psychological incapacity must be limited to the most serious of cases. Certainly, respondent’s infidelity, irresponsibility, habitual lying and abandonment do not constitute the most serious of cases.

8. Under the circumstances, petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that: (i) there exist a psychological incapacity, (ii) which antedated the marriage; and (iii) is grave, serious and incurable. She, too, failed to further establish the link of the failure to assume marital obligations to the alleged personality disorder. 9. Thus, there is no basis for the trial court’s finding that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential duties of marriage as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the decision granting the petition for declaration of nullity be RECONSIDERED and a new one be issued in its stead DISMISSING the petition for lack of merit.

Makati City for Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, July 14, 2015.

ISRAEL DELA CRUZ Solicitor General Roll No.44957 IBP Lifetime Member No. 08505 MCLE Exemption No. IV-001068, 5-14-13

RENER CAFIRMA Senior State Solicitor Roll No. 35338 IBP Lifetime Member No. 07708 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020228

KIDD CASTRO Senior State Solicitor Roll of Attorney’s No. 41169 IBP Lifetime Member No. 011302 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009083

NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT RTC-First Judicial Region Branch 11, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Counsel for the Petitioner Calma Law Office Gen. Luna Cor. Balintawak Sts., 2900 Laoag City

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR Ilocos Norte

Sir: Please submit the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court on July 24, 2015 at 8:30 in the morning without appearance and further oral judgement. RENER CAFIRMA Copy furnished: ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Counsel for the Petitioner Calma Law Office, Room 205 888 Reality Building Gen. Luna cor Balintawak Sts., 2900 Laoag City

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Ilocos Norte

EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rule on Civil Procedure) This Motion for Reconsideration is being filed and served by registered mail due to distance. RENER CAFIRMA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

Before the court could issue its ruling on the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Petitioner is hereby directed to submit within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof to file her comment on the motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated June 18, 2015.

SO ORDERED. Given in chambers this 4th day of August 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

ORDER

For consideration is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General of the Decision of this court in the above-entitled case dated June 18, 2015 granting the petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of Frances Guerrero against Richard Gaspar, anchored on the ground that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the existence of psychological incapacity of the respondent. Moreover, the Solicitor General opined that the expert opinion was merely based on the representations made by petitioner and her friend PO1 AiraSangalang to establish respondent’s psychological incapacity. Petitioner’s and her friend’s testimonies are self-serving and tainted with bias. In the absence of sufficient corroboration, the testimony and the findings of the expert witness is unreliable. Furthermore, the behavioral manifestations of respondents alleged personality disorder do not support the existence of psychological incapacity considering that infidelity, irresponsibility, loss of love and abandonment and other more serious behaviors like physical and verbal abuse are not considered grave or serious so as to equate to psychological incapacity. The petitioner failed to establish the link of the failure to assume the essential marital obligations to the alleged personality disorder. It is to be noted that the psychologist was duly presented and cross examination was made by the trial prosecutor. She averred that she had been the psychologist on record who rendered an expert

opinion to the effect that respondent is suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Antisocial Personality Traits. The psychologist commented that based on the psychologist tests and clinically in-depth interviews from the petitioner and the collateral informant, she found out that there is no evidence to warrant a diagnosis of mental defects or psychological disorder on petitioner’s part. On the other hand, respondent exhibits maladaptive behavior constituting a personality disorder which make him psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations and caused impairment of his marriage with the petitioner. The personality disorder of the respondent is a severe and enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture. It is developmental for it usually begins in childhood or early adolescence. It becomes chronic and pervasive at early adulthood and persists through life. The respondent possesses and manifest traits that constitute a so-called Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Antisocial Personality Traits. The psychologist explicates that the said personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of maladaptive thinking, feeling and behaving because it pervades the whole being of a person and it is developmental in nature because one acquires it from his environment. She explains that as a person grows up and develops, these characteristics and manifestations of disorder are slowly ingrained in his being to be the basis of his outlook later in life. It is called narcissistic because people afflicted with it are usually preoccupied with their self-love and are engrossed in the gratification of their egoistic whims and caprices. She posits that the respondent failed to cooperate with his wife in dealing with their marital woes. As a consequence, he failed to empathize to the needs and feelings of the petitioner because of the presence of personality disorder as evidenced by his exploitative nature, sense of entitlement, infidelity and lack of empathy that warrant a diagnosis which brought severe strain and anxiety to his wife. The psychologist likewise imparts that the nature of the personality disorder of the respondent is grave, incurable and deeply rooted because it already becomes an integral part of what defines an individual. It is chronic and will always disrupt all aspects of a person’s interpersonal relationships. It is deeply rooted because it started early in life and developed mentally ingrained in his system. She explains further that an individual’s personality becomes establish by the time he reaches

early adulthood and by that time, his pattern of behavior will be so pervasive and so ingrained that it cannot be easily modified. It is incurable for it has no known medications specifically to treat such personality disorder. Hence, said person will be unable to recognize or will not acknowledge that he has such a condition. The respondent’s pervasive, chronic and maladaptive mental and behavior patterns shall continue in his lifetime and shall interfere with his ability to perform his essential marital obligations. Thus, the marriage of the parties will turn from bad to worse as time goes by. She makes clear that in summary, the parties were unable to develop a fruitful and harmonious marital relationship. Instead, they developed a Partner Relational Problem that is attributable to respondent’s incurable, deeply-rooted and grave personality disorder that psychologically incapacitates him to understand and fulfil his basic marital obligations to the petitioner. She opines that the marriage of the parties no longer serves its purpose. If their marriage is allowed to continue, the petitioner would only suffer more. A petition of this kind under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration. The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.It bears stressing that the above requirements were duly complied with the petitioner. The presentation of the psychologist with her all out-explanation with respect to the personality disorder of the respondent with complete or all-embracing facts and exhibits confirms that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated in fulfilling his essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of marriage although such incapacity became manifests only after marriage. It is noteworthy also that the petitioner has unequivocally enumerated and detailed out the unbearable characteristics and deeds of the respondent during their marriage. The presentation of the clinical psychologist on the case further support the petitioner’s petition asserting that the parties developed a severe Partner Relational Problem brought about by the manifestation of the respondents characterological flaws that constitute a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Antisocial Personality Traits. Evidence in the case at bar were respondent’s moral fibre being an infidel, disrespectful and immature husband. Traits which set as an example of personality disorder known to

psychologists that render a person psychologically unfit to assume and perform the duties of marriage. Moreover, these are the qualities which make him unable to comply with the essential marital obligations embraced by Article 68 to 71of the Family Code. Article 68 in particular, enjoins the spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. It is worthy to note that during the proceedings, it was stressed that respondent is an irresponsible and unmindful husband as he neglected the feeling of his wife by engaging into illicit affair with different women and by perpetuating his horrendous character. Respondent exhibited also his immaturity brought by his unfounded failure to communicate with petitioner, aside from the economic and emotional abuses he inflicted on her. Moreover, he abandoned his wife and their children and eloped with another woman. These qualities makes it impossible to see how respondent would be able to execute or perform the basic tenets of married life of a husband and wife anchored on love, fidelity, respect and trust. Marriage is not just about physical connection but involves an intertwining personalities that is within the confine of the law and the church. The sanctity of marriage needs to be protected and obeyed as carved in no other else than the law of the land. However, such should not be adhered to all the time especially when one of the contracting party to the marriage is unconscious of his/her constitutional and civil obligations to his/her spouse to the extent that living or staying with one another will only create further pandemonium and total disrespect. It is right to let the parties be accorded their separate ways/freedom from the bondage of a failed marriage that has been ruined from the very beginning and was not able to recuperate despite efforts to make conciliation as a consequence of having one of the parties suffering from psychological disorder that incapacitates him to execute the marital obligations required by law. In this case, the court no matter how it greatly deals to keep its grasp to preserve the marriage of petitioner and respondent, their matrimony will inescapably incline to annihilate because its objectives has been constantly crushed by the respondents. It has been said in several cases that in determining whether a party to a marriage is psychologically incapacitated in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code, it is the trial court that should determine on a case-to-case basis guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines and by decisions of church tribunals. Furthermore, each case must be

judged, not on a basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalization but according to its own facts. As enunciated by the Supreme Court in case of Yambao versus Republic of the Philippines and Yambao, the tenet that the factual milieu of each case must be decided based on its own facts. The mantra that every court should observe the rigid conformity to the strict standards set in the Republic versus Court of Appeals and Molina could not be adhered absolutely. In Antonio versus Reyes, the Supreme Court observed that notwithstanding the guidelines laid down in Molina case, there was a need to emphasize other perspectives as well as that which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. Moreover, the High Court articulated in the case of Ting versus Velez-Ting citing the Te versus Te case, to wit; “We said that instead of serving as a guideline, Molina unintentionally became a straightjacket, forcing all cases involving psychological incapacity to fit into and be bound by it, which is not only contrary to the intention of the law but unrealistic as well as because, with respect to psychological incapacity, no case can be considered as on “all fours” with another.” There is no cogent reason to disturb the court’s findings for it had a first-hand analysis of the witnesses’ deportment. It applied its findings of psychological incapacity based on existing jurisprudence and the law itself which gave this court enough latitude to define what constitutes psychological incapacity. The court’s evaluation of the testimonies and evidence of the petitioner and her witnesses and its findings as to the existence of respondent’s psychological incapacity should remain undisturbed. Clearly, the court has sufficiently established in the Decision relative jurisprudence that substantiates its argument. Thus, the court finds the Motion for Reconsideration to be devoid of merit. The totality of the evidences presented in this case more particularly the efficient and detailed testimony of the petitioner, the psychologist and the collateral informant has convinced the court that respondent Richard Gaspar is psychologically incapacitated to such extent that he lacks awareness and understanding of the essential obligations of marriage that he should assume as a husband to his wife or have known it but wanting to assume and as a father to their children. Wherefore, premises considered, the court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

Upon finality of this Order, a copy shall be furnished each to the Office the Civil Registrar of Vintar, IlocosNorte where the marriage was solemnized and the National Census and Statistics Office, Manila for their appropriate action consistent with this Decision.

SO ORDERED. Given in chambers this 26th day of October 2015 at Laoag City, IlocosNorte.

ELIZA M. RODRIGUEZ Presiding Judge

Copy furnished: 1. Atty. Rowell Calma 2. Frances Guerrero 3. Richard Gaspar 4. Civil Registrar, Vintar, IlocosNorte 5. National Statistics Office, Manila 6. Provincial Prosecutor of IlocosNorte 7. Solicitor General

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 11, LAOAG CITY

FRANCES GUERERO GASPAR, Petitioner. 13 -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 0143-

FOR: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

RICHARD C. GASPAR, Respondent. x--------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF APPEAL

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, to this Honorable Court, hereby gives notice that it is appealing this Honorabl Court’s Order dated October 26, 2015, copy of which was received by the OSG on November 9, 2015 to the Honorable Court of Appeals on both questions of fact and law. Accordingly, it is respectfully prayed that the entire record of the case be forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Makati for Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. November 18, 2015.

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City [email protected]

ISRAEL DELA CRUZ Solicitor General Roll No.44957 IBP Lifetime Member No. 08505 MCLE Exemption No. IV-001068, 5-14-13

RENER CAFIRMA Senior State Solicitor (Officer-in-Charge) Roll No. 35338 IBP Lifetime Member No. 07708 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020228

KIDD CASTRO Senior State Solicitor Roll No. 41169 IBP Lifetime Member No. 011302 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009083

Copy furnished: ATTY. ROWELL CALMA Counsel for the Petitioner Calma Law Office, Room 205 888 Reality Building Gen. Luna cor Balintawak Sts., 2900 Laoag City

EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rule on Civil Procedure)

This Motion for Reconsideration is being filed and served by registered mail due to distance.

RENER CAFIRMA (Senior State Solicitor)