Petition For Certiorari: Court of Appeals

Page 1 of 5
Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
PEDRO SAN JOSE,

Petitioner, C.A. GR NO. ___________
I.S. No. 2004-418
-versus– DOJ MANILA
For: ANNULMENT
JUAN DELA CRUZ, as

Presiding Judge, Branch 4,
Regional Trial Court Tacloban City,
and Maria Regis-San Jose.
Respondents.
x----------------------------------x
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Petitioner PEDRO SAN JOSE (hereinafter “San Jose”), by counsel
respectfully states:
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC, respectively, seeking

the reversal of the Decision rendered on 1 December 2019, denying the
petition for ANNULMENT on the ground of compelling legal arguments.
On 3 December 2019, San Jose received the Notice of

Decision/Order/Resolution Entered and the Decision dated 1 December
2019 of public respondent Dela Cruz.
There is no appeal or any plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary

course of law other than the instant petiion.
Under the foregoing circumstances,petitioner San Jose is constrained

to file this Petition for Certiorari for the consideration of this Honorable
Court.
From the foregoing, San Jose has sixty (60) days from 1 December
2019, or until 1 February 2020, within which to file the instant Petition for
Certiorari.
II. THE PARTIES

Page 2 of 5
A. Petitioner San Jose, of legal age, Filipino, with residence at Brgy.

Pago,Tanauan, Leyte. He is the spouse of the respondent Maria Regis-San
Jose.
B. San Jose may be served with notices, orders, resolutions and other
processes of this Honorable Court through the undersigned counsel at the
address indicated below.
C. Public Respondent Honorable Juan Dela Cruz is the judge that

issued the assailed Decision.
D. Private Respondent Maria Regis-San Jose is the spouse of

Petitioner. She may be served with notices, orders, resolutions and other
processes of this Honorable Court at Brgy. Malaguicay, Tanauan, Leyte.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife respectively,

having legally married on 5 September 2002 in Tanauan, Leyte, evidenced
by a copy of a Certificate of Marriage hereto attached as ANNEX “A” and
made an integral part hereof. From such legal marriage was born their only
child, ABBY SAN JOSE, born on May 5, 2003, evidenced by his
Certificate of Live Birth hereto attached as ANNEX “B”.
2. As shown in the Certificate of Marriage, the parties contracted

marriage without marriage license, but pursuant to Article 34 of the Family
Code, relying on the Joint Affidavit of petitioner and respondent as well as
the Joint Affidavit of Salvador Reyes and Imelda Samson of Brgy. Maribi,
Tanauan that the couple lived together as husband and wife since February
1996 up to the present (4 September 2002) and begot a child ABBY SAN
JOSE, hereto attached as ANNEXES “C” and “D” respectively.
3. The truth of the matter is that respondent was only 19 years old, not
21 years old, when she married the petitioner on 5 September 2002, having
been born on 12 March 1983 as shown in her Certificate of Live Birth
hereto attached as ANNEX “E”. Likewise, ABBY SAN JOSE is not the
daughter of petitioner with respondent, but a daughter of Rudy Gwapito, as
shown in the child’s Certificate of Live Birth hereto attached as ANNEX
“F” .
4. Petitioner, by moral and psychological ascendancy over respondent,

and in connivance with his barrio mates Salvador Reyes and Imelda Samson,
falsified their affidavits to facilitate the marriage, since they very well know
that respondnet cannot get parental consent. Knowing fully well the falsity
of the contents of their affidavits, the marriage is not exceptional but an
ordinary marriage. As such, there being no license obtained, the marriage is
void for lack of valid marriage license [Article 35 (3), Family Code]. The
Page 3 of 5
parties are even liable for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal
Code.
5. Petitioner and Respondent is no longer living together.
6. There is no common community of property that exists between the

parties.
IV. GROUNDS RELIED UPON
1. Article 45 (1) of the Family Code provides that:

A marriage may be annulled for any of the following
causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the

marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over
but below twenty-one, and the marriage was
solemnized without the consent of the parents,
guardian or person having substitute parental
authority over the party, in that order, unless after
attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely
cohabited with the other and both lived together as
husband and wife.
V. D I S C U S S I O N
A. Petitioners will be prejudiced if the petition for annulment will

be denied given the circumstances surrounding their marriage.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner respectfully prays that

this Honorable Court annul,reverse and set aside the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Tacloban, Branch 4, denying the petition for
annulment.
Other reliefs as may be just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
City of Tacloban, Philippines, January 12, 2020.
ATTY. JOHN FRANCISCO

Counsel for the Petitioner
Page 4 of 5
123 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City

Roll No. 12345
IBP No. 12345
PTR OR 1234567; 1-3-05; Tacloban City
Republic of the Philippines )

City of Tacloban ) S.S.
VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NO FORUM SHOPPING
I, PEDRO SAN JOSE, under oath, hereby depose and say:
That I am the petitioners in the above-entitled petition; that I have

caused its preparation; that I have read it and the allegations therein are true
and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records;
That I have not theretofore commenced any other action involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency ; and there is no similar
action or proceeding which has been filed or is pending before the Supreme
Page 5 of 5
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other

tribunal or agency. That if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five (5) days therefor.
PEDRO SAN JOSE
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 14 January 2020

in the City of Tacloban, Philippines.
Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
SERIES OF 2020
COPY FURNISHED BY REGISTERED MAIL
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,

Chief State Prosecutor JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO
Asst. Chief State Prosec. MIGUEL F. GUIDO, JR.
State Prosecutor MARY JOSEPHINE P. LAZARO
Department of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila
The SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village
Makati City

Petition For Certiorari: Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition For Certiorari: Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition For Certiorari: Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 5

Republic of the Philippines

PEDRO SAN JOSE,

JUAN DELA CRUZ, as

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC, respectively, seeking

On 3 December 2019, San Jose received the Notice of

There is no appeal or any plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary

Under the foregoing circumstances,petitioner San Jose is constrained

II. THE PARTIES

A. Petitioner San Jose, of legal age, Filipino, with residence at Brgy.

C. Public Respondent Honorable Juan Dela Cruz is the judge that

D. Private Respondent Maria Regis-San Jose is the spouse of

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife respectively,

2. As shown in the Certificate of Marriage, the parties contracted

4. Petitioner, by moral and psychological ascendancy over respondent,

5. Petitioner and Respondent is no longer living together.

6. There is no common community of property that exists between the

IV. GROUNDS RELIED UPON

1. Article 45 (1) of the Family Code provides that:

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the

A. Petitioners will be prejudiced if the petition for annulment will

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner respectfully prays that

City of Tacloban, Philippines, January 12, 2020.

ATTY. JOHN FRANCISCO

123 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City

Republic of the Philippines )

That I am the petitioners in the above-entitled petition; that I have

Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other

PEDRO SAN JOSE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 14 January 2020

Doc. No. ____

THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

You might also like