REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 1
BULWAGAN NG KATARUNGAN
PALLOCAN WEST
BATANGAS CITY

AMBROCIO GAUDENCIO M. BOO, CIVIL CASE NO. 08-

8433
Petitioner,

- versus - for

CARLOTA A. BOO, Declaration of Nullity of

Respondent. Marriage Under Art.
36 of the Family Code
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

Petitioner, by himself, unto this Honorable Court,

respectfully submits this pre-trial brief, as follows:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner prays that the instant Petition be GRANTED

and that the marriage between petitioner AMBROSIO
GAUDENCIO M. BOO and respondent CARLOTA A. BOO be
ANNULLED and that the custody of their minor children
JOHN CHRISTIAN A. BOO and JANE CHRISTINE A. BOO
be permanently granted to petitioner.

Petitioner and respondent were married on July 9, 2002

in san Pascual, Batangas. Even prior to their marriage, their
relation bore a son, minor John Christian. Another child,
minor Jane Christine, was born after the marriage.

During the time petitioner and respondent lived

together, petitioner noted some peculiar and undesirable
traits from respondent; the latter was extremely lazy and did
not bother to perform the most simple of household chores,
even after the birth of their children. Subsequently, when
petitioner worked abroad to sufficiently provide for the needs
of his growing family, respondent continued to neglect her
duties as wife and mother. During said period, respondent
spent most of her time outside her home and hardly paid
attention to their children, preferring to spend her time with
friends. Respondent rarely came home sober and when she
did come home, she would arrive intoxicated, extremely late
at night or early in the morning of the next day and spend
her time at home sleeping. Upon waking up, respondent
would again leave and spend her time with her mostly male
friends. To make matters worse, the money being sent by
petitioner for the needs of the family was being spent by
respondent in her nocturnal adventures.

Even upon the return of petitioner to the country,

respondent continued her activities and paid no attention to
her husband, refusing to join him at family meals and even
refusing to sleep with him. Instead, respondent continued to
go out at night with friends. When petitioner returned to
work abroad, respondent resorted to stealing money and
jewelry from the house so that she can continue her
fondness of the night life. Sometime in 2005, petitioner and
respondent separated with petitioner staying in the country
to take care of their children while respondent left the
residence. Petitioner attempted to woo respondent again so
that they can live together as a family for the children’s
sake, but his attempts were outrightly rejected by
respondent.

Even prior to the filing of this case, petitioner sought

counsel and assistance from DR. ROMEO Z. ROQUE, M.D.,
DPBD, who, after examining both, found respondent to be
suffering from BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER
which was already existing prior to and at the time of the
celebration of their marriage. Individuals suffering from this
disorder have a pervasive pattern of unstable personal
relationships characterized by frantic efforts to avoid
abandonment and fear of being left alone; identity
disturbance; impulsivity; chronic suicidal thoughts; and
affective instability. Persons suffering from this disorder
have poor insight and are unaware that their actions are
dysfunctional and unable to see that their behaviors are
wrong and unacceptable. The said disorder is found to be
severe enough to render respondent incapable of performing
the basic obligations of marriage, they being permanent and
incurable, thus falling squarely under Article 36 of the Family
Code.

Petitioner and respondent have no conjugal property.

Both children, who are of minor age, are living with

petitioner.

I. PETITIONER HAS NO PROPOSALS FOR

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR ARBITRATION NOR
IS HE AMENABLE TO ANY

II. PETITIONER HAS NO PROPOSALS FOR

STIPULATION OR ADMISSION

III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether or not petitioner’s marriage to respondent is

void under Article 36 of the Family Code;

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to sole custody

of their minor children

IV. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

Pertinent provisions of the Family Code and the Civil

Code

V. NUMBER OF WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

Petitioner intends to present at least three (4)

witnesses, namely, Jayson Magbanua Ilagan, Lilibeth Boo
Marquez, including himself and Dr. Roque to prove the
allegations in the petition.

VI. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED

 The documents to be presented are attached to the
petition but he reserves his right to present documentary
evidences during the course of the trial.

VII. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES

Any dates which are convenient to the calendar of

the Honorable Court.

Respectfully submitted.

Batangas City, October 10, 2008.

AMBROSIO
GAUDENCIO M. BOO
Respondent

Assisted by:

EMILIO G. ACLAN
Public Attorney 3
Roll No. 42272
MCLE Compliance No. II-0010849

Copy furnished:

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

Batangas City

Office of the Solictor General

134 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village, Makati City

Carlota Boo
Balete Relocation Site
Batangas City

EXPLANATION
 Copy of this Pre-Trial Brief was furnished to all
concerned thru registered mail with return card instead of
personal service due to lack of manpower to effect the
same.

AMBROSIO GAUDENCIO M. BOO