G.R. No. 186400 - Bolos vs. Bolos

Case Summary (G.R. No. 186400)

RTC Orders Denying Appeal and Finality

The RTC denied due course to Danilo’s appeal in an order dated September 19, 2006 because he failed to file the required motion for reconsideration or new trial as mandated by the relevant Rule (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC), and denied his motion for reconsideration of that denial on November 23, 2006. The RTC then issued an order on January 16, 2007 declaring the August 2, 2006 decision final and executory and granting Cynthia’s Motion for Entry of Judgment.

Court of Appeals Proceeding and Ruling

Danilo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in (1) denying due course to his appeal, (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of that denial, and (3) declaring the RTC decision final and executory. The CA granted the certiorari petition, reversed and set aside the RTC orders, and held that the motion for reconsideration requirement of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply because the marriage was celebrated in 1980 — before the Family Code took effect in 1988. The CA relied on this Court’s discussion in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli to conclude A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers only marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code.

Petitioner’s Arguments on Review

Cynthia sought review by the Supreme Court. Her contentions included (1) the CA misapplied Enrico because the facts differ, (2) the phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC modifies “petitions” and not “marriages,” so the rule applies to petitions under the Family Code even if the marriage was celebrated before the Family Code, (3) alternatively, if A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply, the Court should relax rules in favor of substantive justice given the alleged merit of her case, and (4) the CA erred in denying her motions for extension and partial reconsideration.

Respondent’s Argument

Danilo maintained that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not applicable because the marriage was solemnized in 1980, before the Family Code’s effectivity in 1988. He urged the Court to recognize the meritorious nature of his appeal, arguing the RTC erred in finding psychological incapacity rather than mere failure of spouses to perform marital obligations.

Legal Issue Presented

The principal legal question: whether A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to petitions to declare null marriages that were solemnized before the Family Code’s effectivity (i.e., whether the rule’s scope is confined to marriages entered into during the Family Code era).

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC

The Supreme Court emphasized the Rule’s clear and categorical language. Section 1 states the Rule “shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines.” The Court read the phrase “under the Family Code” as delimiting the marriages governed by the Rule to those entered into during the Family Code’s effectivity (from August 3, 1988 onward). Consequently, the Court concluded the Rule’s coverage “extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code.”

Statutory Construction and Plain Meaning Rule

The Court applied the plain-meaning rule: where the statute or rule is clear and unambiguous, the language must be given its literal meaning without resort to interpretation. Relying on maxims that speech indexes intention and that one should not depart from statutory words, the Court rejected Cynthia’s contention that “under the Family Code” modifies “petitions” rather than “marriages.” The Rule’s wording, in the Court’s view, plainly restricts its application to marriages governed by the Family Code.

Non-extendibility of the Motion for Reconsideration Period

The Court reaffirmed the long-established principle that the 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. The CA properly denied Cynthia’s request for extension because time for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be suspended or tolled by a motion for extension; the reglementary period runs regardless. Consistent jurisprudence treats such procedural time limits as mandatory to ensure orderly and prompt disposition of cases and to prevent delay.

Finality, Appeal, and Right to Appeal

The Court noted the fundamental function of appeal in the judicial system: appeal is statutory but essential, and courts must be cautious not to deprive parties of the right to appeal. In this case, however, because Danilo failed to comply with the preconditions under the applicable rule (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC as interpreted to apply only to Family

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 186400)

Citation and Panel

G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010; reported at 648 Phil. 630; Second Division.
Decision authored by Justice MENDOZA.
Concurring: Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, and Peralta, JJ.
Note: Justice Leonardo-De Castro designated in lieu of Justice Roberto A. Abad per Special Order No. 905 dated October 5, 2010.

Nature of the Proceeding and Relief Sought

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Seeks review of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated December 10, 2008 in an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 (CA-G.R. SP. No. 97872).
The CA decision reversed RTC orders that had declared final and executory the RTC decision pronouncing the nullity of the marriage between petitioner and respondent.
Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to set aside the CA decision and related CA resolution.

Underlying Facts — Marriage and Nullity Petition

Cynthia S. Bolos (petitioner) and Danilo T. Bolos (respondent) were married 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, docketed as JDRC No. 6211.
The petition alleged psychological incapacity relevant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

RTC Proceedings and Judgment

After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision dated August 2, 2006.
The RTC declared the marriage null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of both petitioner and respondent under Article 36 of the Family Code.
RTC disposition directed furnishing a copy of the decision to the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan and the National Statistics Office (NSO).
A copy of the RTC decision was received by Danilo on August 25, 2006.

Post-Decision Procedures in the RTC

Danilo filed a Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006.
RTC, by order dated September 19, 2006, denied due course to Danilo’s appeal for failure to file the required motion for reconsideration or new trial, citing Section 20 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC).
Danilo’s motion to reconsider the denial of his appeal, filed November 23, 2006, was likewise denied.
On January 16, 2007, the RTC issued an order declaring its August 2, 2006 decision final and executory and granting Cynthia’s Motion for Entry of Judgment.

CA Petition and Relief Sought by Respondent Danilo

Not in conformity with the RTC’s orders, Danilo filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
He sought annulment of the RTC orders on grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, specifically attacking:
- the September 19, 2006 Order denying due course to his appeal;
- the November 23, 2006 Order denying his motion to reconsider; and
- the January 16, 2007 Order declaring the RTC decision final and executory.
Danilo also prayed that he be declared psychologically capacitated to render essential marital obligations and that Cynthia be declared guilty of abandoning him, the family home, and their children.

Court of Appeals Decision and Rationale

The Court of Appeals granted Danilo’s petition and reversed and set aside the assailed RTC orders.
The CA held that the requirement of a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply because the parties’ marriage was solemnized on February 14, 1980 — before the Family Code took effect (August 3, 1988).
The CA relied on this Court’s ruling in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli (G.R. No. 173614, September 28, 2007) for the proposition that the coverage of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code.

Cynthia’s Motions to the CA and CA Resolution

Cynthia filed a Manifestation with Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the CA Decision dated December 10, 2008.
The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated February 11, 2009, denied the motion for extension of time on the ground that the 15-day reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible, citing Section 2, Rule 40, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure and Habaluyas v. Japson (142 SCRA 208).
The CA also denied the motion for partial reconsideration.

Issues Presented in the Supreme Court Petition

Cynthia raised issues asserting that the CA gravely erred in:
- Issuing the December 10, 2008 decision for several reasons, including: (A) Enrico is not applicable because its facts differ; (B) if Enrico is applicable, its ruling is erroneous because the phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC pertains to “petitions” and not to “marriages”; (C) A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is therefore applicable to marriages solemnized before the Family Code; and (D) respondent’s refusal to comply with a precondition for appeal should not justify relaxation of rules.
- Issuing th
...continue reading