G.R. No. 249953 - Republic vs. Villacorta

The Republic of the Philippines filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals’ February 26, 2019 and September 20, 2019 resolutions dismissing its appeal under Rule 50, § 1(e).
The appeal arose from the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 22, which on November 16, 2017 annulled the marriage of Melvin T. Villacorta (“Melvin”) and Janufi Sol P. Villacorta (“Janufi”) for fraud under Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(2) of the Family Code.

Melvin and Janufi met in 1996, parted in 2000, reconciled in March 2001 after Janufi denied dating another man, and had sexual relations only in March 2001.
On December 1, 2001, Janufi gave birth to Mejan Dia; Melvin doubted paternity but relied on Janufi’s assurances. They cohabited and eventually married on August 14, 2004. Janufi bore a second child, Javen Mel, on October 18, 2004.

Marital quarrels over Mejan Dia’s paternity prompted Melvin to take a DNA test in November 2010, which showed 0.0% probability that he was the father.
Janufi sent text messages in January and March 2011 admitting to “white lies,” but claiming no intent to deceive; Melvin filed for annulment on March 15, 2011.
The RTC granted annulment in its November 16, 2017 decision; the OSG appealed to the CA, which dismissed the appeal for late filing of the brief (Feb. 26, 2019) and denied reconsideration (Sept. 20, 2019).

Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the Republic’s appeal for failure to timely serve and file its appellate brief under Rule 50, § 1(e)?

Did the RTC err in annulling the marriage for fraud under Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(2) of the Family Code, given that Janufi was not pregnant at the time of marriage and that Article 46(2) prescribes specific, restrictive grounds?