Both James and Kris had to present documents declaring each of their incomes since 2005, the year they got married. The said documents were attached in the petition for nullification of their marriage, submitted by Kris’ camp to the Makati Family court on Aug. 9.

In an exclusive interview with entertainment site, PEP, James’ laywer, Atty. Lorna Kapunan, says that these details surfaced in connection with the division of property and conjugal money that comes with the case. In the said documents, Kris reportedly earned more than P300 million in that span of time, and James earned P20 million.

As reported by the entertainment site, Atty. Kapunan said, "There is probably an attempt here to show that she earns much more and therefore should get more of the properties. We had not made any statement yet on the properties, but James is thinking about it," sambit ni Atty. Kapunan.

But the lawyer vehemently denies rumors that surfaced, which claimed that James was demanding P80 million from Kris. She stated, “That's not true! We never made any demands for money and we never will. What James will file, when he's ready to file, is what is provided by law, which is that the properties be equally split."

It will be noted that the celebrity couple married in July 10, 2005 without a prenuptial agreement. But with Kris’ filing of the case, a legal dispute would arise between the former couple regarding James’ visitation rights to their 3-year-old son, Baby James.

Last August 16, James’ camp formally filed the Motion for Provisional Award of Visitation Rights at the Makati Regional Trial Court. According to the pro-cager at presscon called on the same day of the filing of the motion, he last saw BabyJames on July 30 and had since been reportedly prohibited by Kris from seeing the boy any further.

Atty. Kapunan also gave PEP this statement: "It is sad that sometimes [in the] property issue, ang ginagamit na leverage, to get more or less property, are the children. We hope that's not the situation here. Property situation here is [that] ang regime of property is absolute community. In other words, what Kris and James had before their marriage, and what they acquired during the marriage, they share 50/50. It should be divided 50/50. That is the law."

But the lawyer reiterated that James’ attention is not focused on money and property; instead, his priority remains the ability to visit or spend time with his son. James, who is scheduled to fly to the U.S. on Aug. 22 for a vacation, so the lawyer hopes they could get him a visit with his son before then.

Atty. Kapunan said that their camp had read statements made by Kris’ camp to the media that they are open to visitation rights and would even agree to a meeting to discuss it—but when they called, they were informed there’s no such meeting, thus, creating much confusion. Be that as it may, James’ petition is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, Aug. 20, at the sala of Judge Cristina Javalera-Sulit at the Branch 140 of the Makati Regional Trial Court.

“In our petition, ang hiningi namin is that we be allowed Friday visitation until Saturday. Friday, Saturday, and then overnight ng Friday, then the rest of the week kay Kris na," said Atty. Kapunan, detailing their request, reiterating that James really does not see his son as he has been “kicked out of their home.”

In line with this, James’ lawyer is also planning to write the building administration office of One Roxas, their residential condo in Makati, that James and Kris both own the unit there and that he cannot be denied access.

Aside from visitation, Atty. Kapunan says what they want to get for their client is the right to take him to basketball games, the way Kris is able to take Baby James to her shows. James would also like to be able to take him to Escalante, Negros Occidental to visit with his grandparents and other relatives.

"They may not belong to the same economic social strata, but certainly the grandparents also desire to see naman their apo. Kris has prohibited James from bringing Baby James to Escalante," Atty. Kapunan told PEP. She also disputed Kris’ request for “sole parental authority” on Baby James.

She argued: "Ang Family Code natin joint... Joint parental authority ang nakalagay sa bagong Family Code. She's asking for sole parental authority, hindi puwedeng ganyan. Even if assuming the parties are separated, there can still be joint parental authority and there can also be visitation, with the parties just figuring out schedules. And may schooling 'yong bata, e. [Baby] James is going to school, so that should be taken into consideration."

In the end, Atty. Kapunan said they are not aware of any communication between Kris and James, except a text message from Kris, “saying that she's open to visitation. Ang hindi lang gusto ni James, 'yong again, she's dictating the terms when that is something that should be mutually decided by the mother and father of the child."

The lawyer added: "Sana kung talagang gusto nilang maghiwalay, huwag na sana silang nag-imbento ng reasons, sabihin na lang nila 'yong totoo. We don't even know. Si James nga, as he is reading this [court document], he doesn't know what happened. He doesn't know what the real intention of Kris is. In fact, nagulat nga siya dahil wala naman silang pinag-awayan before Kris suddenly filed this case."

But curiously, in an interview on “The Buzz” on August 1, Kris said they had a major fight. Kris had shared: "I acknowledge na naubos talaga iyong love April 26 of this year. May nasabi siya sa anak ko which I will forever keep between the two of us. May nasabi siya sa galit namin sa isa't-isa siguro nung panahon na iyon, na nasaktan talaga ako. At iyon ang nagpatunay sa akin that this is not the man for me and this is not the man I want to stay with, because dinadamay na niya ang three-years-old na bata na dapat protektahan naming dalawa."

Nevertheless, the lawyer is also confident about the result of their petition. “I think no matter how bad the fight is, or the hurt, or anguish, or pain, or disagreement between the husband and wife...the court has never denied visitation rights. Because the court recognizes that a family is a unit and a child should not be penalized for acts of the parents.

"In fact, all the more, a child in a situation like this should feel that he or she is not involved in the fight of the parents and that no matter what happens, the father is there for him, or the mother is there for him or her. In this situation, iba 'yong away ng mag-asawa, iba naman 'yong issue ng visitation over the child. So, the court will always give visitation over the child because that's good for the child," she told PEP.