G.R. No. 140484 - Castro vs. Castro

A petition for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code was filed on July 1, 1998 by private respondent Lamberto R. Castro against petitioner Isabelita S. Castro.
The petition alleged psychological incapacity on the part of the petitioner as the ground for annulment.
Summons and a copy of the petition were reportedly served on petitioner through her nephew at her residence, though petitioner later contested the validity of such service.

Petitioner’s failure to file an answer prompted the RTC to direct the state prosecutor to conduct an investigation.
The state prosecutor’s report concluded that there was no collusion between the parties in the filing of the petition.
The petition was set for an ex-parte hearing on August 18, 1998, with the investigator’s presence ensuring the due observance of procedural steps.

During the ex-parte hearing on August 19, 1998, private respondent testified regarding the parties’ marital history:

The marriage, solemnized in 1958, had produced four children, though the couple had long been living apart.
Testimony included allegations of irresponsibility, violence, a lack of affection, and an illicit affair by petitioner.

Clinical psychologist Regine Marmee C. Cosico presented psychological test results indicating that petitioner was psychologically incapacitated and unable to perform marital obligations.
Based on the presented evidence, Judge Jaime F. Bautista rendered a decision on August 19, 1998 declaring the marriage annulled.

On September 8, 1998, petitioner filed a Motion to Set Aside/Declare Judgment Null and Void, contesting:

The alleged lack of personal jurisdiction due to irregular service of summons.
The veracity of private respondent’s allegations and the actual ground for filing the petition.

The trial court, on March 2, 1999, partially granted the petitioner’s request by setting aside its previous decision temporarily and allowing respondent to present contrary evidence.
Further motions for postponement were filed by petitioner’s counsel:

A motion for postponement was granted, rescheduling the hearing from the original date to May 5, 1999, and later to June 16, 1999.

Despite such motions, the RTC on May 5, 1999, reaffirmed the Decision dated August 19, 1998, deeming petitioner to have waived her chance to present countervailing evidence.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration filed by petitioner on May 19, 1999, were denied on July 1, 1999.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on July 19, 1999, which was countered by a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, culminating in the RTC’s Order on September 20, 1999 that maintained the original decision.

The decision became final and executory on October 11, 1999, with the entry of judgment on October 29, 1999.
The petition for certiorari was subsequently filed by petitioner challenging:

The final petition was dismissed, and the earlier RTC orders were affirmed, especially in light of private respondent’s death on January 14, 2004.

Whether the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over the petitioner given the allegations of improper service of summons.
Whether due process was observed in the proceedings, particularly in allowing petitioner an opportunity to present her evidence and contest the annulment claim.
Whether the findings regarding petitioner’s psychological incapacity, based on the evidence presented by the clinical psychologist, were sufficient to support the annulment of the marriage.
Whether the issuance of multiple orders (on May 5, 1999; July 1, 1999; and September 20, 1999) and the handling of the subsequent motions, such as the motion for postponement and reconsideration, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the effect of private respondent’s subsequent death impacts the binding nature of the final judgment.