Title
Castro vs. Castro
Case
G.R. No. 140484
Decision Date
Jan 28, 2008
A marriage annulled due to psychological incapacity; improper summons contested, but jurisdiction upheld due to acknowledgment and participation. Judgment final.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140484)

Facts and Proceedings

Lamberto R. Castro filed the annulment petition against Isabelita S. Castro, citing psychological incapacity. A summons and a copy of the petition were allegedly served to Isabelita through her nephew at her residence. However, Isabelita did not file an answer to the petition. Subsequently, the RTC assigned the state prosecutor to investigate the circumstances surrounding the petition, which concluded that there was no collusion between the parties. The court scheduled a hearing for August 18, 1998. Isabelita failed to appear, leading the court to allow Lamberto to present his evidence ex parte.

Ex Parte Hearing and Trial Court's Decision

During the ex-parte hearing, Lamberto described their marriage since 1958, detailing the alleged incidents of violence, neglect, and infidelity that led to their separation. To substantiate his claims, Lamberto presented clinical psychologist Regine Marmee C. Cosico, who conducted psychological tests on both parties. The psychologist concluded that Isabelita was psychologically incapacitated and, as a result, unable to fulfill her marital responsibilities. On August 19, 1998, the RTC granted the annulment, declaring the marriage annulled.

Motion to Set Aside Judgment

On September 8, 1998, Isabelita filed a motion to set aside the trial court's decision, asserting that the RTC had not acquired proper jurisdiction due to inadequate service of summons. She claimed that the sheriff's return was invalid and that she had no such nephew living with her. Lamberto opposed her motion, defending that the summons was properly served. The trial court acknowledged Isabelita's motion and partially granted it, scheduling a hearing for her to present contrary evidence.

Subsequent Hearings and Orders

Despite the opportunity provided to Isabelita, she continued to seek postponements for subsequent hearings. On May 5, 1999, the RTC reaffirmed its prior decision, asserting that Isabelita had effectively waived her right to present evidence due to the numerous postponements filed by her counsel. After her motion for reconsideration was denied on July 1, 1999, Isabelita filed a notice of appeal against this interlocutory order. However, on September 20, 1999, the trial court maintained its prior decision and granted Lamberto's motion to dismiss the appeal.

Finality of the Judgment and Appeal

The decision became final and executory on October 11, 1999, with the entry of judgment occurring on October 29, 1999. Isabelita challenged the judgement, claiming that the trial court had no jurisdiction and that it acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court found no merit in Isabelita's claims. It determined that she had received proper notice of the petition and had acknow

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.