Title
Bolos vs. Bolos
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 186400 Oct 20, 2010
A woman's petition for the nullity of her marriage is denied by the Supreme Court
due to her failure to file a motion for reconsideration before appealing the
decision, highlighting the importance of following procedural rules in cases of
marriage nullity.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 186400)
Comprehensive
Facts:
The case "Bolos v. Bolos" involves petitioner Cynthia S. Bolos and respondent Danilo T.
Bolos. On July 10, 2003, Cynthia filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her
marriage to Danilo under Article 36 of the Family Code, docketed as JDRC No. 6211. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 69, granted the petition on August 2,
2006, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio due to psychological incapacity on
both parties' parts. Danilo received the decision on August 25, 2006, and filed a Notice of
Appeal on September 11, 2006. However, the RTC denied the appeal on September 19,
2006, for Danilo's failure to file a motion for reconsideration or new trial, as required by
Section 20 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Danilo's subsequent motion to reconsider the denial
was also denied on November 23, 2006. On January 16, 2007, the RTC declared its
August 2, 2006 decision final and executory. Danilo then filed a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's orders, stating
that the requirement for a motion for reconsideration did not apply as the marriage was
solemnized before the Family Code took effect. Cynthia sought reconsideration, which
the CA denied, leading her to file the present petition via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue:
1. Whether A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, applies to marriages solemnized
before the effectivity of the Family Code.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying Cynthia's motion for extension of
time to file a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to marriages
solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision to deny Cynthia's motion
for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court found that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly governs petitions for the
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages
under the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988. The rule's language is clear
and unambiguous, applying only to marriages entered into during the Family Code's
effectivity. The Court emphasized the plain-meaning rule in statutory construction,
stating that when the law is clear, it must be applied as written without interpretation.
The Court also noted that procedural rules must be strictly followed to prevent delays
and ensure the orderly administration of justice. The appellate court correctly denied
Cynthia's motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, as the
reglementary period for filing such motions is non-extendible. The Court reiterated that
the right to appeal is essential and should not be deprived lightly, especially in cases
involving the sacrosanct institution of marriage, which is protected under the 1987
Constitution and the Family Code. The preservation of marriage and family is a matter of
public interest, and the courts must ensure that parties have the fullest opportunity to
present their cases.
