Sample Pre-trial Brief_annulment

7/29/2019 Sample Pre-trial Brief_annulment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sample-pre-trial-briefannulment 1/9

Page 1 of 9

Republic of the Philippines

Ninth Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Dipolog City, Branch 7

MARIA NAGMAHAY-KHO Civil Case No.: 12-345678

Petitioner, For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Art. 36 of the

Family Code of the Philippines

- versus -

JUAN TOM KHO, Respondent.

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

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF THE PETITIONER

The Petitioner, represented by the undersigned counsels as her attorneys-in-law,

respectfully submits to this Honorable Court this Pre-Trial Brief, to wit:

I.

POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR ALTERNATIVE MODES OF DISPUTE

R ESOLUTION

The Petitioner is not willing to consider any amicable settlement or undergo alternative

modes of dispute resolution with respect to the primary prayer of this petition. However, the

Petitioner is open to the possibility of amicable settlement in relation to the partition and

accounting of the conjugal properties and assets of her union with the Respondent.

II.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The Petitioner proposes the following stipulation of facts:

1. Petitioner met Respondent sometime in December 2002 at Jollibee, Dipolog City,

where she worked part-time as a Cashier. Respondent was one of the customers of

said fastfood chain whom she served and who took an immediate attraction to her.



Page 2 of 9

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

with flowers and gifts, visiting her frequently at the fastfood chain and in her

school, Saint Vincent’s College, and bringing her home.

3. During the courtship, Petitioner often asked Respondent where he worked and

what his job was, but Respondent always replied that he was still looking for a

suitable job that his mother would approve of.

4. Petitioner also asked Respondent where he gets his money whenever they went

out on dates since the latter was unemployed while he was courting Petitioner.

Respondent replied that his parents always gave him an allowance for

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

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

every two hours and ask him where he was. Petitioner also observed that every

time she went out on a date with the Respondent, he always bought his mother a

bouquet of flowers before heading home.

6. Petitioner eventually committed to a relationship with Respondent after about six

(6) months of courtship when Respondent told her that he would stop courting her

if she would not commit to a relationship with him.

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

Respondent because she found out that the Respondent lied to her about looking

for a job. Petitioner discovered that Respondent, since graduating from college,

never sought employment.

8. Respondent later found employment in LFD Corporation, a company owned by

his family where his mother was the Chief Executive Officer, as an Sales Officer.

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

her to have pre-marital sex with him and when she refused, Respondent attempted

to commit suicide.

10. Fearing that Respondent would again attempt suicide, Petitioner engaged in pre-

marital sex with him, resulting in her feelings of guilt and remorse.



Page 3 of 9

11. Soon after this, Respondent proposed marriage to Petitioner because he sensed the

feelings of constant guilt and remorse exhibited by Petitioner.

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

Cathedral, Dipolog City on 8 June 2004 before a certain Rev. Makadiyos, as

evidenced by their Certificate of Marriage dated 8 June 2004. The wedding

ceremony and reception at the Top Plaza Hotel was attended by both parties'

friends and family.

13. After the marriage ceremony, the spouses returned to their respective parents'

homes and lived separately since they had not yet established a conjugal home.

14. Respondent visited Petitioner in her house in Victoria Country Homes daily.

However, Respondent’s mother would always call him up and ask him to go

home. Respondent’s mother would ask their family driver to drive her to Victoria

Country Homes to pick up her son in the wee hours of the morning.

15. In 2004, as a result of Respondent's request, Petitioner moved in to the house of

Respondents' parents believing it would only be temporary until the couple has

enough money of their own to rent or purchase their own residence.

16. In the same year, the couple established an internet café business along Bonifacio

Street, Dipolog City which was mostly funded by Respondent’s parents with the

exception of the funds invested by the Petitioner.

17. The Internet café business closed down about after a year due to the fact that it

was not earning enough profit with Petitioner promising the Respondents' parents

that they would reimburse them for the capital they gave to start the business.

Respondents' mother on the other hand told her reimbursement was not necessary

because she never expected the same.

18. Sometime in 2004, since the couple’s savings were still insufficient to purchase a

house and lot, Petitioner applied for and was employed as a Management Trainee

at Equitable PCI Bank.



Page 4 of 9

19. While working at Equitable PCI Bank, there were times that Petitioner would

come home late from work only to discover that Respondent was out of the house

or with his friends.

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

from Equitable PCI Bank as a result of the prohibition of the former’s mother. In

addition to this, there were several times where Respondent would fetch Petitioner

from the office with his mother.

21. In February 2005, Petitioner and Respondent were finally able to move out of

Respondents' parents’ home. They moved to a house purchased by Respondents'

mother on No. 123 Martinez Village, Turno, Dipolog City, which was a block

away from Respondents' parents’ home.

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

lunch, and dinner. Respondent’s mother also volunteered to pay for the house

utilities.

23. Sometime in April 2005, Respondent was relieved of his position at LFD

Corporation when it was dissolved. Respondent did not seek employment

elsewhere.

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

familial expenses. Respondent’s mother asked Petitioner what expenses were not

being covered by her salary and even volunteered to subsidize their other

household expenses.

25. During this period of unemployment, Respondent consistently tried to convince

Petitioner to move back into the home of Respondent’s parents, because he stayed

there anyway almost the entire day since he had no work.

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

position at Equitable PCI Bank when the bank experienced a bank run.

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

constantly reminded the Petitioner that they can live off his parents who can



Page 5 of 9

afford to support them anyway and that Petitioner should just abandon the idea of

moving into their own family home.

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

to undergo marriage counseling sometime during the month of December 2005.

29. Petitioner brought him to Dr. Ama Shrink, a psychologist, who not only

counseled the couple until June of 2006 but also made a psychological evaluation

and assessment of the Respondent at the request of the Petitioner and with the

knowledge and consent of the former that his wife would receive a copy of the

doctor’s findings.

30. The psychological evaluation and assessment issued by Dr. Shrink on 25 July

2006, revealed that the Respondent is suffering from a dependent personality

disorder which is serious, incurable and existing prior to the union between the

two, rendering him incapable of performing the essential marital obligations, the

features of which are (1) difficulty making everyday decisions without an

excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others, especially Respondent’s

mother, (2) needs others to assume responsibility for the major areas of his life (3)

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

uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of exaggerated fears of being

unable to care for himself or herself, (5) is unrealistically preoccupied with fears

of being left to take care of himself or herself, and (6) an overwhelming lack of

interest to take responsibility for his actions and his life.

31. As Petitioner could no longer bear the emotional and psychological stress brought

about by Respondent’s mentality and behavior, she left the home of her parents -

in-law to live on her own sometime in October 2006.

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

Church in a decision they released concerning the so-called union between the

Petitioner and the Respondent on 27 April 2008 penned by a Fr. Pedro Pagampo,

S.J., the Respondent manifested a simple but deep-seated aversion to performing

his marital obligations as he failed to provide the Petitioner with the



Page 6 of 9

companionship, respect, mutual help, support, and care required by law as he

decided to provide the same to his mother. The said decision goes on to state that

the inability of the Respondent to discharge the essential obligations of marriage

is grave and incurable, as the acts constituting the same are habitual, persistent,

unchanging and of enduring nature.

III.

ISSUES TO BE TRIED AND R ESOLVED

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

Court:

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

obligations stated in Article 68 of the Family Code;

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

stated in Article 68 of the Family Code, whether or not such failure was due to

psychological incapacity which is grave, serious and incurable and existing at the

time of the marriage, though only manifesting itself during the marriage.

IV.

DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED

The Petitioner will present the following documents

1. Marriage Certificate between Maria Nagmahay-Kho and Juan Tom Kho made

on 8 June 2004.

2. Certificate of Employment of Juan Tom Kho from LFD Corporation issued on

3 November 2003.

3. Certificate of Employment of Maria Nagmahay-Kho from Equitable PCI Bank

issued in 2004.

4. Deed of Sale over No. 123 Martinez Village, Turno, Dipolog City purchased by

Juan Tom Kho's mother on 2 February 2005.



Page 7 of 9

5. Psychological Evaluation and Assessment of Juan Tom Kho made by Dr. Ama

Shrink on 25 July 2006.

6. Decision of National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal penned by Fr. Pedro

Pagampo, S.J. on 27 April 2008.

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

course of trial.

V.

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

The Petitioner will present the following witnesses:

1. Maria Nagmahay-Kho will testify as to truthfulness of her allegations in the

petition, particularly the breakdown of her union with Juan Tom Kho because of

the latter's psychological incapacity.

2. Dr. Ama Shrink will testify as to the truthfulness of his Psychological Evaluation

and Assessment of Juan Tom Kho made on 25 July 2006. He will also testify as to

how serious Juan Tom Kho 's psychological condition is, what he believes is the

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

Juan Tom Kho and Maria Nagmahay-Kho.

3. Mudra Kho, mother of Respondent, will testify as to the methods, schemes, and

ways in which she helped her son before and during the marriage. She will also

testify as to the nature of her relationship with her son and how the latter was

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

condition.

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

of trial.



Page 8 of 9

VI.

AVAILABLE DATES FOR TRIAL

The Petitioner respectfully requests that the trial dates be agreed upon in open court at

such dates and time convenient to the parties and the calendar of this Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court

that the foregoing Pre-Trial Brief be duly noted.

Dipolog City, 20 September 2013.

INES H. JUNIOCounsel for Petitioner

Address: 001 Leonor Rivera St., Banonong, Dapitan City

Contact Nos.: 0908 891 4006; 0927 382 2585Roll No. 98765

PTR No. 012345; 4/10/12; Dipolog City

IBP No. 067891; 1/20/13; Dipolog Chapter

ALMA ADRIASCounsel for Petitioner

Address: Circumferential Road, Barra, Dipolog City

Contact Nos.: 0932 000 0000Roll No. 43210

PTR No. 067891; 4/10/12; Dipolog City

IBP No. 012345; 1/20/13; Dipolog Chapter

Copy furnished:INES HAMOY JUNIO & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for Respondent

Address: FSA Building, ABC Complex, Central Barangay, Dipolog CityContact Nos.: (065) 212-1234 to 8



Page 9 of 9

EXPLANATION

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

INES H. JUNIOCounsel for Petitioner

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Jose Rivero, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Junio, counsel for petitioner in the case entitled

“ Nagmahay-Kho vs. Kho”, Civil Case No. 123456, and as such messenger I served upon thecounsels of the adverse party, the petition filed in said case:

By depositing the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the

counsels at their office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster toreturn the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 20th day of September 2013, as

shown by Registry No. 12345 dated 20 September 2013 of the post office of Dipolog City.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 20th day of September 2013

at Dipolog City.

JOSE RIVERO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 20th day of September 2013 at Dipolog City,

affiant exhibiting to me her Driver's License No. 12345678900 which will expire on December 10, 2014.

FLORDELIZ FLORIDA

Notary Public

Dipolog City

Doc. No. _______;Page No. _______;

Book No. _______;

Series of 2013.

Documents

Sample Pre-trial Brief_annulment