Case Digest (G.R. No. 148560) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Cynthia S. Bolos v. Danilo T. Bolos (G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010), petitioner Cynthia S. Bolos filed on July 10, 2003 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 69, a petition to declare her marriage to respondent Danilo T. Bolos null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the 1987 Family Code. After trial, the RTC rendered its decision on August 2, 2006 granting annulment of the marriage solemnized on February 14, 1980. Danilo received a copy of the decision on August 25, 2006 and filed a Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006 but failed to file the required motion for reconsideration or new trial. Consequently, the RTC denied due course to his appeal on September 19, 2006 and likewise denied his motion for reconsideration on November 23, 2006. On January 16, 2007 the RTC declared its annulment decision final and executory. Danilo then invoked Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a Case Digest (G.R. No. 148560) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and filing
- Marriage between Cynthia S. Bolos and Danilo T. Bolos solemnized on February 14, 1980.
- On July 10, 2003, Cynthia filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code (JDRC No. 6211).
- Regional Trial Court proceedings
- On August 2, 2006, the RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio for psychological incapacity of both spouses.
- Danilo received the decision on August 25, 2006; filed a Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006, but failed to file a motion for reconsideration as required by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Section 20.
- The RTC denied due course to the appeal on September 19, 2006; denied Danilo’s motion for reconsideration on November 23, 2006; and on January 16, 2007, declared its August 2, 2006 decision final and executory.
- Court of Appeals proceedings
- Danilo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA to annul the three RTC orders for grave abuse of discretion.
- The CA, relying on Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli (534 SCRA 418), held that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply to marriages before the Family Code’s effectivity (August 3, 1988); thus no motion for reconsideration was required, and reversed the RTC orders.
- Cynthia moved for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and for partial reconsideration; the CA denied both on February 11, 2009, citing the non-extendible 15-day period (Habaluyas v. Japson, 142 SCRA 208).
- Petition for review under Rule 45
- Cynthia challenged the CA’s December 10, 2008 Decision and February 11, 2009 Resolution, raising issues on the applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC to pre-Family Code marriages and procedural regularity.
- The Supreme Court granted review on these questions.
Issues:
- Does A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (“Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages”) apply to marriages solemnized before August 3, 1988?
- Did the CA err in denying Cynthia’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration?
- Should the procedural rules be liberally interpreted in favor of petitioner based on justice, novelty of the issue, and special circumstances?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)