Case Digest (G.R. No. 249953)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Mel Via T. Villacorta, G.R. No. 249953, June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General, OSG); the respondent is Melvin T. Villacorta (Melvin). The dispute arose from Melvin’s petition to annul his marriage to Janufi Sol P. Villacorta (Janufi) on the ground of fraud under Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(2) of the Family Code.Melvin and Janufi met in 1996, reconciled in 2001, and Janufi gave birth to Mejan Dia on December 1, 2001. The couple began living together and eventually married on August 14, 2004; a second child was born in October 2004. Recurrent quarrels raised the paternity of Mejan Dia; a DNA test in November 2010 showed a 0.0% probability that Melvin was the father. Text messages from Janufi in January and March 2011 suggested she had misled Melvin about the circumstances of Mejan Dia’s conception. Melvin filed for annulment on March 15, 2011.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, Cebu City, rendered a Decision on November 16, 2017 annulling the marriage, finding that Janufi fraudulently concealed that she had slept with another man who impregnated her—thus invoking Article 46(2). The Republic (via the OSG) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), Eighteenth Division (formerly Eighteenth Division). The CA, by Resolution dated February 26, 2019, dismissed the OSG’s appeal under Rule 50, Section 1(e) of the Rules of Court for failure to serve and file the required copies of the appellate brief within the time provided. The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration asserting timely filing by registered mail of a motion for extension (January 30, 2019) and that its brief was filed by registered mail on April 30, 2019 and received by the CA via private courier on May 2, 2019. The CA denied reconsideration in its September 20, 2019 Resolution, again treating the brief as late.
The OSG brought a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Sup...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the OSG’s appeal for failure to timely file and serve its appellate brief?
- Did the RTC err in annulling the marriage on the ground of fraud under Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(2) of ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)