Case Digest (G.R. No. 179620)
Facts:
This is Manuel G. Almelor v. The Hon. Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 254, and Leonida T. Almelor, G.R. No. 179620, August 26, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Manuel G. Almelor (petitioner) and Leonida T. Almelor (respondent) married on January 29, 1989 and had three children. After about eleven years of marriage Leonida filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Las Piñas, docketed LP-00-0132, seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground that Manuel was psychologically incapacitated to perform marital obligations. Leonida testified about Manuel’s alleged harsh private conduct, dependence on his mother, and manifestations of homosexual behavior (telephone conversations, pornographic materials, and an alleged kiss with another man). She presented Dr. Valentina del Fonso Garcia, a clinical psychologist, who testified that Manuel suffered from a pervasive personality disorder and opined psychological incapacity with antecedence.
Manuel denied the allegations, attributing Leonida’s hostility to professional rivalry between nearby hospitals, denying cruelty to the children, and disputing the homosexual acts; he presented his brother Jesus as a witness and intended to present a psychiatrist but did not. The RTC, by decision dated November 25, 2005, declared the marriage null and void, dissolved the community property regime, forfeited petitioner’s conjugal share in favor of the children, awarded custody to Leonida and support, and directed registration of the judgment; the RTC grounded its conclusion partly on perceived homosexuality and its incompatibility with marriage and also discussed Article 45 and Article 46 of the Family Code.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal which was denied due course. He then filed a petition for annulment of judgment (Rule 47) with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio (with Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Arturo G. Tayag concurring) dated July 31, 2007, dismissed the Rule 47 petition as the wrong remedy and denied relief, reasoning that the proper remedy for alleged error in judgment was an ordinary appeal, not Rule 47. Manu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court relax procedural strictness and treat petitioner’s wrongly-labeled CA filing as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 or otherwise give it due course so that the appeal may be heard on the merits?
- Was the annulment of the marriage proper on the grounds asserted—i.e., did the evidence establish psychological incapacity or fraud (concealment of homosexuality) vitiating consent?
- Was the RTC authorized to dissolve the community property and forfeit petitioner’s conjugal share in favor of...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)