SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION: Marvin Carlo Beltran Caling vs Kristeen Bernadette Gabriana De Leon-Caling

 
Republic of the Philippines
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
Regional Trial Court
Branch 2-FC(Family Court)
Baguio City

+0743095952	fc1bag0002@judiciary.gov.ph			+639978924574
MARVIN CARLO BELTRAN CALING,			Civ. Case No.
Petitioner,			2297-FC   For:
-versus-
KRISTEEN BERNADETTE GABRIANA DE LEON-CALING,			Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------x

 
SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION
                           
            WHEREAS, the petitioner Marvin Carlo Beltran Caling, through counsel, filed a Petition on July 18, 2022, quoted verbatim, as follows:
 
        “Comes now Petitioner, and unto the most Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:
 
1.     This Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is filed on the ground that petitioner and the respondent are both psychologically incapacitated in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. This is manifested by their inability to fulfil their essential marital obligations due to their respective personality disorders. Petitioner claims that his legal rights under Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code has been violated by the respondent. He was not loved and respected, by his wife. His wife refused to live together with him despite his efforts for them to stay together. Respondent left him to live in the United States of America with their child immediately after the wedding. In addition thereto, the respondent never processed the papers of the petitioner who was supposed to join her and their child in the United States of America. Petitioner affirms that the psychological incapacities has been existing even before the marriage, and it clearly manifested after the marriage.
 
2.     Petitioner is 35 years old, Filipino Citizen, married, and with residence and postal address at #24 West Bayan Park, Leonila Hill, Baguio City, Philippines since the year 2013 up to the present. Respondent is 36 years old, Filipino Citizen, married and with last known residence and postal address at 266 Young land Road Camp 7 Baguio City, Philippines where she may be served with summons and other court processes;
 
3.     Petitioner and Respondent were married on February 21, 2009 in the Immaculate Conception Parish Ledesma St. Aurora Hill, Baguio City. A machine copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”, to form an integral part hereof;
 
4.     They have one common child by the name of Kirsten Chloe De Leon Caling (13 years old) who was born on September 6, 2008. Her Baptismal Certificate is hereto attached as Annex “B”, to form an integral part hereof;
 
5.     Marvin Carlo (“Carlo” for brevity) and Kristeen met in the year 1999. They were first year high school classmates in Saint Louis Aurora Hill;
 
6.     Carlo made a regular effort to have conversations with Kristeen. He was attracted to her and he made it known. Soon thereafter, they became high school sweethearts. But love at such a tender age was fleeting. They started fighting after a month due to their jealous tendencies. One day Carlo saw Kristeen holding the arm of one of his close friends and he understood that their relationship had ended. After a quick confrontation, Kristeen and the “other friend” admitted to their new found relationship;
 
7.     Both parties never talked after that episode. It took a whole year for Kristeen to apologize to Carlo. Eventually, Kristeen went to a different school and then she left for the United States in the year 2005;
 
8.     Throughout the years both parties were able to communicate through social apps. In the year 2007, Kristeen contacted Carlo and told him that she was coming back to the Philippines for a vacation. She went to his house and soon former feelings were ignited. They became a couple that day;
 
9.     From December 2007 to February 2008, Kristeen would go to see Carlo in his house and they would go on dates. However, by the end of December 2007 she admitted to Carlo that she had a boyfriend based in Manila who was in Baguio City during that time visiting her. Carlo was disappointed to say the least;
 
10.  Kristeen promised Carlo that she was going to break up with her boyfriend from Manila and she asked that Carlo give her time to do that. Carlo was aware that Kristeen would go to see her boyfriend from Manila from time to time. Although it was painful for Carlo he did not get angry and simply waited for Kristeen to keep her word. When Kristeen told Carlo that she had already separated from the man, he believed her;
 
11.  When Kristeen left for the United States in February of 2008 she and Carlo still had constant communication. Around March of 2008, she informed Carlo that she was pregnant with their child. She was worried that her mother would let her leave. Carlo told her that she can always come home to the Philippines and he would care for her and their child;
 
12.  Carlo informed his mother, who took the news lightly. She supported Carlo and his three other siblings and she was happy for the news. This was not the case on the side of Kristeen. Her mother was a strict woman and Kristeen feared her. When she found out that her daughter was pregnant, she asked Carlo “Anong balak mo sa anak ko?”;
 
13.  On September 6, 2008 Kristeen and Carlo became parents. Four months later, Kristeen and her mother came home to the Philippines and it was decided that they would get married. Both parties planned the wedding and before the actual date, Carlo brought Kristeen and their child to Pampanga in order to meet his relatives. However, Kristeen had a dislike of Carlo attending get togethers, whether it was with his family or friends. She would sulk and in order to appease her, he would not go to any gatherings;
 
14.  The day before the wedding Kristeen threw a tantrum because Carlo had to work. She accused him of not doing his part and this hurt Carlo because he managed to accomplish his share of the wedding plans despite work constraints.
 
15.  On March of 2009, a month after the wedding, Kristeen and their child went back to the US. She refused to stay in the Philippines because she claimed that there is no work for her here. Instead, she asked Carlo to follow her in the US;
 
16.  This was not a good year for Carlo. Aside from the fact that his wife and child left for another country, he lost his employment when the company he was working for had to close. But what hurt Carlo the most was that during the wedding, an uncle of Kristeen approached him and accused him of using Kristeen as a stepping stone to get to the United States. Carlo was deeply hurt;
 
17.  Things picked up later on in 2010 when he was able to find work with a company that offered him better benefits and a better salary. Again he extended his invitation to Kristeen to come home to the Philippines. He offered her and their child financial support, but she refused. This became a source of misunderstanding between Carlo and Kristeen because Carlo initially refused to migrate to the US as well. Eventually, he let Kristeen win and submitted all the requirments she needed to process his visa;
 
18.  When Carlo’s work started to pick up, he was not always able to comply with Kristeen’s demands that he answered her calls. There were times that he failed to immediately answer the calls due to work constraints and Kristeen would say: “Sino nanaman kasama mo?” or “Kasama mo nanaman barkada mo ano”. But the most painful thing she would accuse him of is cheating. She would say “Siguro may babae ka sa work ano?”;
 
19.  Because of Kristeen’s demands, Carlo had to connect to the internet even during work hours. This was prohibited by the company. But he wanted to prove to Kristeen that he was a faithful husband.  He would stay up late until ee hours of the morning just to talk to Kristeen. There were times he would go to work with very few hours of sleep. Sadly, it was Kristeen who started to pull away. She started calling and messaging less than the usual. Soon, she refused to talk to Carlo and instead she would just direct the phone or computer to their daughter;
 
20.  Carlo did not understand what was happening. He tried to talk to her and ask her what was happening to them, but she simply replied “Kung tayo, tayo”. When Carlo asked her if they were going to be alright, she answered “not ready to give an answer”;
 
21.  As the years went by, Kristeen never processed the papers of Carlo. Even Kristeen’s sister asked Carlo what was taking him so long to go to the US. The family of Kristeen was not aware of what was happening between the petitioner and respondent;
 
22.  In the years 2011, 2013, and 2016 their child came home to the Philippines for visits. She was accompanied by her grandmother. Kristeen never came back to the Philippines. Carlo and his child have a close bond. She stays with him whenever she come to the Philippines for vacation. They talk to each other through social apps almost every day. Once, Kristeen called Carlo accusing him of spoiling their child. Carlo felt hurt, because Kristeen rarely gives him the opportunity to help support his child. He is only able to spend for her when she comes to the Philippines. Although he has voiced his support to Kristeen several times, she only asked him to send money once;
 
23.  Carlo is hoping that his daughter decides to study here in the Philippines when she finishes high school in the US. This would allow him more time to bond with her;
 
24.  Carlo fully realized after all these years and after consultation with the psychologist that Kristeen does not love him. Her own happiness will always come first.  No matter how much he would sacrifice for Kristeen, she will never love and respect him.  This is why it was easy for Kristeen to simply leave him. Carlo consulted a psychologist. This was to try to understand what was happening to himself.  His sessions with the psychologist made him understand that his marriage with the respondent would not work because both of them suffer from psychiatric disorders which render them psychologically incapacitated to recognize and perform their marital duties and obligations;
 
25.  This petition does not fall within the cases requiring compliance with the provisions of the Local Government Code regarding referral to the Lupon Tagapamayapa;
 
26.  Pursuant to Section 5 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and Section 2(b) of A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC petitioner submits a Residency Certification from Barangay Aurora Hill attached as Annex “C”, the house location sketch is also attached and marked as Annex “D”. Likewise submitted and attached as Annex “E” is the sworn statement of undersigned counsel attesting that petitioner had been residing at his indicated address for at least six (6) months prior to the filing of the petition. A photocopy of petitioner’s Driver’s License is likewise attached as Annex “F”. Lastly, to prove that the venue of this case is in Baguio City, petitioner would like to attach as Annex “G” a Contract of Lease between himself and Arturo D. Aguilar;
 
27.  Likewise attached as Annex “H” is a Certificate of Non-Property from the Office of the City Assessor of Baguio City;
 
28.  The witnesses to be presented in this case are:
a.   petitioner
b.   John Beltran Caling
c.   Edward T. Espinosa
d.   Normita R. Cruz
 
29.  The petitioner’s testimony will consist of the following:
a.     That he and the respondent were high school sweethearts but they broke up because petitioner discovered that respondent was also in a relationship with one of their friends;
b.     That after several years apart, petitioner and respondent rekindled their relationship in a single day and after a few months, respondent discovered she was pregnant;
c.     Petitioner loved the respondent and proposed marriage. The respondent agreed and she came back to the Philippines together with their common child. The parties were wed;
d.     However, the respondent immediately went back to the United States and asked the petitioner to follow her;
e.     The petitioner was deeply hurt as respondent’s uncle told the former during the wedding that he was only using the respondent as a stepping stone to get to the United States thus he decided to look for work in the Philippines;
f.      Petitioner tried to convince the respondent to migrate back to the Philippines, but she refused. In the meantime, petitioner did his best to comply with respondents’ wishes that he consistently communicated with her even if it meant he be connected to his social media accounts from morning until evening due to the time difference;
g.     When petitioner’s work started to pick up, he was not always able to comply with the respondent’s demands to answer her calls. There were times that he failed to immediately answer the calls due to work constraints and Kristeen would say: “Sino nanaman kasama mo?” or “Kasama mo nanaman barkada mo ano”. But the most painful thing she would accuse him of is cheating. She would say “Siguro may babae ka sa work ano?”;
h.     Two years after the marriage, petitioner decided to give in to respondents wishes and he sent his papers for visa application for the United States to the respondent. However, respondent never processed his papers;
i.      Not long after, respondent no longer talked to the petitioner. She would let their daughter Chloe talk to her father instead when petitioner calls;
 
30.  Edward T. Espinosa, the collaborating witness will testify that:
a.    He will describe the petitioner and respondent as he knew them from elementary and high school;
b.    Respondent changed when she came back from the States. She was no longer the friendly type as she is quiet most of the time when she visits;
c.   When respondent went back to the United States, Carlo was in front of the computer all the time. He would no longer go out with friends and whenever friends visited Carlo, the laptop was also in the table so that Kristeen could watch them;
d.   Carlo was supposed to immediately follow Kristeen to the US, but he felt insulted when an uncle of Kristeen said that Carlo was using her as a stepping stone to get to the US;
e.   Kristeen never came back to the Philippines after the wedding;
 
31. John Beltran Caling, another collaborating witness, will testify that:
a.     Respondent constantly visited their house when they were sweethearts with his brother;
b.     She does not like Carlo drinking or getting together with friends or family:
c.     When respondent went back to the United States, Carlo was in front of the   computer most of the time. He would even bring the laptop to the comfort room;
d.     Carlo was supposed to immediately follow Kristeen to the US, but he felt insulted when an uncle of Kristeen said that Carlo was using her as a stepping stone to get to the US;
e.     Kristeen never visited the Philippines after the marriage and Carlo’s visa for the US was never processed;
f.      He will also testify that Carlo is very close with his daughter Chloe. When Chloe visits they spend most of their time together 
 
32.  Normita Cruz, the psychologist will testify as to the following:
a.     The informants of Normita Cruz are: the petitioner, John B. Caling and Edward T. Espinosa.
b.     Petitioner is suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD). The incapacitating effects of OCPD of the Petitioner on his marital obligation is that his rigid insistence on making the Respondent come home and preoccupation with putting order in their life by waiting on the Respondent via keeping his computer online all the time, led him to being self-critical with high distress and dysfunction in his work. His emotional detachment and withdrawal from the Respondent is his attempt to maintain control as he is threatened with loss of order in his marital life. To ease his anxiety over loss of marital control, he turns to doing productive work and consistent bonding with his child during her visits while living his life emotionally detached from the Respondent as his wife which led to the breakdown of their marriage. It is almost 10 years of living separately from the Respondent with no communication.
c.     Respondent is inferred to be manifesting an Obsessive Compulsive Personality structure. The incapacitating nature of having an obsessive compulsive personality structure in the Respondent stems from her inflexibility to impose her own high standards of order on how the Petitioner must act. Her being wrapped up in her own ways of correct behavior made her fail to understand and appreciate the ideas, feelings and behaviors of the Petitioner resulting to a failure for growth in healthy intimacy.  A copy said Psychological Evaluation Report and Curriculum Vitae of Normita Cruz are attached as Annexes “I” and “J” respectively to form part of this Petition;
 
33.  The original/ certified true copy of the documents attached to the Initial Petition are the following:
a.     Certificate of Marriage of petitioner and respondent (Annex A) (Exhibit A)
b.     Baptismal Certificate of Kirsten Chloe D. Caling (Annex B) (Exhibit B)
c.     Certificate of Residency from the Office of the Punong Barangay of Leonila Hill Barangay (Annex C) (Exhibit C)
d.     house location sketch (Annex D) (Exhibit D)
e.     sworn statement of undersigned counsel (Annex E) (Exhibit E)
f.      photocopy of petitioner’s Driver’s License (Annex F) (Exhibit F)
g.     Contract of Lease (Annex G) (Exhibit G)
h.     Certificate of Non-Property from the Office of the City Assessor of Baguio
          (Annex H) (Exhibit H)
i.      Psychological Evaluation Report of Normita Cruz (Annex I) (Exhibit I)
j.      Curriculum Vitae of Normita Cruz (Annex J) (Exhibit J)
k.     Judicial Affidavit of Petitioner (Annex K)
l.      Judicial Affidavit of Edward T. Espinosa (Annex L)
m.   Judicial Affidavit of John Beltran Caling (Annex M)
n.     Judicial Affidavit of the psychologist Normita R. Cruz, (Annex N)
 
P R A Y E R
 
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that, after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered:
 
Declaring the petitioner and respondent’s marriage absolutely null and void for reasons of psychological incapacity of either or both parties to comply with their respective marital obligations, in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines;
 
Petitioner prays for other measures as are just and equitable under the premises.
 
This 18^th day of July 2022 in Baguio City, Philippines.
 
By:
(SGD)
DAWN C. IRVING-FERNANDEZ
Counsel for the Petitioner
Roll No. 60426 03/23/12
IBP Lifetime No. 1003727 01/5/16, Baguio-Benguet
PTR No. 5370357 01/19/22, Baguio City
MCLE Compliance: VI-7555 4/14/22
Rm 305, 3/F Gamboa Bldng.
175 Session Rd.,Baguio City
dawn9832004@gmail.com
cellphone number: 09088851753”
 
                WHEREAS, on October 17, 2022, the petitioner, through counsel, filed a Motion For Leave of Court To Serve Summons By Publication attaching thereto his and his counsel’s affidavit stating that summons was not served personally upon respondent KRISTEEN BERNADETTE GABRIANA DE LEON-CALING for reason that she is now a citizen of the United States of America and has not been residing at her given address for fifteen (15) years now.
 
            WHEREAS, on October 18, 2022, the Court ordered that summons together with a copy of the petition be served upon respondent KRISTEEN BERNADETTE GABRIANA DE LEON-CALING by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Baguio City and Benguet Province once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks, at the expense of the petitioner.
 
            NOW THEREFORE, YOU, KRISTEEN BERNADETTE GABRIANA DE LEON-CALING, presently residing outside the Philippines, are hereby summoned through this medium of publication and are therefore required to file, through the Office of the Clerk of Court, your responsive pleading and/or answer to the above-quoted Petition within sixty (60) days from notice, serving at the same time a copy of your responsive pleading and/or answer upon petitioner’s counsel Atty. Dawn C. Irving-Fernandez, Room 305, 3/F Gamboa Building 175 Session Road, Baguio City. 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 defenses in the answer.
 
            WITNESS THE HONORABLE MODESTO D. BAHUL, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Court, this 20^th day of October 2022 at Baguio City, Philippines.
 
Joma Sagummay D. Fang-asan                                                                                                                                                                           Branch Clerk of Court
Copy furnished:
-Atty. Dawn C. Irving-Fernandez
-Kristeen Bernadette Gabriana De Leon-Caling, Respondent
-RTC-OCC, Baguio City