Case Summary (G.R. No. 127843)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner Cynthia filed a petition for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Respondent Danilo received the RTC decision, filed an appeal without a prerequisite motion for reconsideration, and later sought certiorari relief in the CA.
Key Dates
– Marriage: February 14, 1980
– Petition for annulment filed: July 10, 2003
– RTC decision granting annulment: August 2, 2006
– Notice of appeal filed by Danilo: September 11, 2006
– RTC orders denying appeal and motions (due course, reconsideration): September 19, November 23, 2006
– RTC order declaring finality: January 16, 2007
– CA Decision reversing RTC: December 10, 2008
– CA Resolution denying reconsideration: February 11, 2009
– Supreme Court Decision: October 20, 2010
Applicable Law
– 1987 Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 12; Art. XV, Secs. 1–2) recognizing marriage as an inviolable social institution.
– Family Code of the Philippines (effective August 3, 1988), Article 36 (psychological incapacity).
– A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (March 15, 2003): Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages.
Factual Background
Cynthia alleged that both spouses were psychologically incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations. The RTC found their marriage void ab initio for psychological incapacity and ordered its registration nullified. Danilo, although served with the decision, failed to file a motion for reconsideration before appealing.
Procedural History
Danilo’s appeal at the RTC was dismissed for lack of a motion for reconsideration, and his subsequent reconsideration motion was denied. The RTC then declared its annulment decision final and executory. Danilo petitioned for certiorari in the CA, asserting grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s procedural rulings. The CA reversed the RTC, holding that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply to marriages solemnized before the Family Code. Cynthia moved for reconsideration and extension of time, both denied by the CA.
Issue
Whether A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code, thereby making a motion for reconsideration a precondition to appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied Cynthia’s petition. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs only petitions under the Family Code—i.e., marriages entered into on or after August 3, 1988—and does not extend to pre-1988 marriages.
Reasoning
- Section 1 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly limits its scope to petitions for nullity or annulment under the Family Code.
- The phrase “under the Family Code” modifies “marriages,” not “petitions.” Under the plain-meaning rule, clear statutory language must be applied literally.
- Procedural rules fixing reglementary periods (e.g., 15 days for a motion for reconsideration) are ma
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 127843)
Case Title and Procedural Posture
- G.R. No. 186400, Second Division, October 20, 2010
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
- Arises from the CA Decision of December 10, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 97872 (“Danilo T. Bolos v. Hon. Lorifel Lacap Pahimna and Cynthia S. Bolos”)
- RTC of Pasig City, Branch 69, issued August 2, 2006 Decision annulling marriage
- RTC denied Danilo’s appeal and declared the nullity decision final and executory on January 16, 2007
- CA reversed and set aside the RTC orders; Cynthia petitioned the Supreme Court
Factual Background
- Petition filed July 10, 2003 by Cynthia under Art. 36, Family Code, alleging psychological incapacity of both spouses
- Marriage solemnized February 14, 1980, before the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988)
- Trial on the merits conducted by the RTC
RTC Proceedings and Decision
- August 2, 2006 RTC Decision declared marriage null and void ab initio for psychological incapacity of both parties
- Disposition ordered entry of judgment and transmittal of decision to Local Civil Registrar and NSO
- Danilo received copy on August 25, 2006; filed Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006
RTC Orders Denying Appeal
- September 19, 2006: RTC denied due course to the appeal for failure to first file a motion for reconsideration or new trial (Section 20, Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity)
- November 23, 2006: Motion for reconsideration of the denial likewise denied
- January 16, 2007: RTC issued order declaring the August 2, 2006 decision final and executory and granted Cynthia’s Motion for Entry of Judgment
CA Proceedings and Decision
- Danilo filed Rule 65 certiorari petition in CA claiming grave abuse of discretion in the three RTC orders
- Argued that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC motion-for-reconsideration prerequisite did not apply to pre-Family Code marriages
- December 10, 2008 CA Decision reversed and set aside the RTC orders
- February 11, 2009 CA Resolution denied Cynthia’s Manifestation with Motion for Extension of