G.R. No. L-6505 - Asuncion Roque vs. Encarnacion

The case involves Asuncion Roque (petitioner/plaintiff) and Francisco Reyes (respondent/defendant).
The conflict arose from a matrimonial dispute where there are allegations on both sides regarding the validity and conduct within the marriage.

Plaintiff claimed that she married the defendant in November 1943, with the marriage giving rise to two children.
She alleged that during the marriage, she acquired certain personal and real properties that produced a monthly income of P3,530.
She accused the defendant of committing concubinage with Elena Ebarle and of attempting to take her life in 1952 by assaulting and trying to strangle her.
Based on these allegations, she sought several remedies:

The defendant admitted to marrying the plaintiff but contended that the marriage was celebrated in February 1944, not November 1943, thereby introducing a chronological dispute.
He denied the allegations of concubinage and the misrepresentation regarding the income or squandering of the properties.
In his counterclaim, the defendant alleged that:

The plaintiff was already married to Policarpio Bayore since February 19, 1930, at the time she contracted the marriage with him.
The plaintiff had fraudulently represented herself as single, thus lacking capacity to contract a valid marriage.
She had been diverting funds obtained from him for her own benefit, including attempting to acquire property in her name.

On October 21, 1952, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that an action for annulment could not be disposed of via summary judgment.
In support of the motion, the defendant submitted:

The deposition of Policarpio Bayore, identifying a certified copy of his marriage to the plaintiff.
An affidavit attesting to his claims.

The trial judge granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, thereby issuing an immediate ruling that:

Declared the plaintiff’s marriage to the defendant null and void ab initio.
Held that the plaintiff had concealed her true marital status, awarding custody of the children to the defendant—with the exception of granting custody of the smaller child to the plaintiff.
Forfeited the plaintiff’s rights to conjugal properties in favor of their children.

That the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment in an action to annul a marriage.
That genuine issues of fact, such as her assertion of entering the marriage in good faith and her contention regarding the status of Policarpio Bayore, existed.

Whether a summary judgment procedure is appropriate in an action to annul a marriage given that such actions are not traditionally classified under actions “to recover upon a claim” or “to obtain a declaratory relief.”
Whether the Rules of Court, which require an actual trial for annulment cases (e.g., section 10, Rule 35), prohibit granting a summary judgment in this type of matrimonial dispute.

Whether the trial court’s reliance on the deposition of Policarpio Bayore and the affidavit of the defendant, in the absence of any counter-evidence from the plaintiff, was sufficient to resolve the complex issues surrounding the marriage.
Whether genuine issues of fact, including the good faith under which the plaintiff entered into the marriage and the status of her previous marriage, warranted a trial rather than a summary judgment.

Whether the immediate annulment of the marriage and the awarding of custody and property rights, without a full trial, amounted to an abuse of judicial discretion and an excess of jurisdiction.