Summons by Publication: MARVIN CARLO BELTRAN CALING versus KRISTEEN BERNADETTE GABRIANA DE LEON-CALING
>> Sunday, November 13, 2022
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 18th 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
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 20th 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
0 comments:
Post a Comment