BOLOS V. BOLOS
634 SCRA 429, [October 20, 2010]
DOCTRINE:
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage; The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which the Court promulgated on 15 March 2003, extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on 3 August 1988.
FACTS:
Petitioner Cynthia Bolos(Cynthia)filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Respondent Danilo Bolos (Danilo) under Article 36 of the Family Code. After trial on the merits, the RTC granted the petition for annulment. A copy of said decision was received by respondent Danilo and he thereafter timely filed the Notice of Appeal.
The RTC denied due course to the appeal for Danilo’s failure to file the required motion for reconsideration or new trial, in violation of Section 20 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Thereafter, the RTC issued the order declaring its decision declaring the marriage null and void as final and executory and granting the Motion for Entry of Judgment filed by Cynthia. Not in conformity, Danilo filed with the CA a petition forcertiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the orders of the RTC as they were rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. Danilo also prayed that he be declared psychologically capacitated to render the essential marital obligations to Cynthia, who should be declared guilty of abandoning him, the family home and their children.
The CA granted the petition and reversed and set aside the assailed orders of the RTC declaring the nullity of marriage as final and executory. The appellate court stated that the requirement of a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply in this case as the marriage between Cynthia and Danilo was solemnized on February 14, 1980 before the Family Code took effect.
Petitioner argues that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is also applicable to marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. According to petitioner, the phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the word “petitions” rather than to the word “marriages.” Such that petitions filed after the effectivity of the Family Code are governed by the A.M. No. even if the marriage was solemnized before the same. Danilo, in his Comment, counters that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not applicable because his marriage with Cynthia was solemnized on February 14, 1980, years before its effectivity.
ISSUE:
Whether or not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC entitled “Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,” is applicable to the case at bench.
HELD:
No, it does not.
RATIO:
The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule, in fact, reads:
“Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines.
The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.”
The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.7 The rule sets a demarcation line between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code.8 The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to petitioner’s interpretation that the phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the word “petitions” rather than to the word “marriages.”
In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the RTC decision which denied due course to respondent’s appeal and denying petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
