G.R. No.

186400 October 20, 2010 In an order dated September 19, 2006, the RTC denied due course to the
appeal for Danilo’s failure to file the required motion for reconsideration
CYNTHIA S. BOLOS, Petitioner, or new trial, in violation of Section 20 of the Rule on Declaration of
vs. Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages.
DANILO T. BOLOS, Respondent.
On November 23, 2006, a motion to reconsider the denial of Danilo’s
DECISION appeal was likewise denied.

MENDOZA, J.: On January 16, 2007, the RTC issued the order declaring its August 2,
2006 decision final and executory and granting the Motion for Entry of
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Judgment filed by Cynthia.
Court seeking a review of the December 10, 2008 Decision1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 entitled Not in conformity, Danilo filed with the CA a petition for certiorari under
"Danilo T. Bolos v. Hon. Lorifel Lacap Pahimna and Cynthia S. Bolos," Rule 65 seeking to annul the orders of the RTC as they were rendered
docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 97872, reversing the January 16, 2007 with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
Order of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch jurisdiction, to wit: 1) the September 19, 2006 Order which denied due
69 (RTC), declaring its decision pronouncing the nullity of marriage course to Danilo’s appeal; 2) the November 23, 2006 Order which denied
between petitioner and respondent final and executory. the motion to reconsider the September 19, 2006 Order; and 3) the
January 16, 2007 Order which declared the August 2, 2006 decision as
On July 10, 2003, petitioner Cynthia Bolos (Cynthia) filed a petition for final and executory. Danilo also prayed that he be declared
the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Danilo psychologically capacitated to render the essential marital obligations to
Bolos (Danilo) under Article 36 of the Family Code, docketed as JDRC Cynthia, who should be declared guilty of abandoning him, the family
No. 6211. home and their children.

After trial on the merits, the RTC granted the petition for annulment in a As earlier stated, the CA granted the petition and reversed and set aside
Decision, dated August 2, 2006, with the following disposition: the assailed orders of the RTC. The appellate court stated that the
requirement of a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal
under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply in this case as the marriage
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the marriage
between Cynthia and Danilo was solemnized on February 14, 1980
between petitioner CYNTHIA S. BOLOS and respondent DANILO T.
before the Family Code took effect. It relied on the ruling of this Court in
BOLOS celebrated on February 14, 1980 as null and void ab initio on the
Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli3 to the effect that the "coverage [of
ground of psychological incapacity on the part of both petitioner and
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC] extends only to those marriages entered into
respondent under Article 36 of the Family Code with all the legal
during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3,
consequences provided by law.
1988."
Furnish the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan as well as the National
Cynthia sought reconsideration of the ruling by filing her Manifestation
Statistics Office (NSO) copy of this decision.
with Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration and
Motion for Partial Reconsideration [of the Honorable Court’s Decision
SO ORDERED.2 dated December 10, 2008]. The CA, however, in its February 11, 2009
Resolution,4 denied the motion for extension of time considering that the
A copy of said decision was received by Danilo on August 25, 2006. He 15-day reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-
timely filed the Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006. extendible, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 40, 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure citing Habaluyas v. Japson, 142 SCRA 208. The motion for II
partial reconsideration was likewise denied.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ISSUING THE
Hence, Cynthia interposes the present petition via Rule 45 of the Rules of QUESTIONED RESOLUTION DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2009
Court raising the following CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING AND THE FACTUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.
ISSUES
III
I
THE TENETS OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THE NOVELTY AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ISSUING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE AND THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
QUESTIONED DECISION DATED DECEMBER 10, 2008 IN THIS CASE JUSTIFY AND WARRANT A LIBERAL VIEW OF THE
CONSIDERING THAT: RULES IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER. MOREOVER, THE INSTANT
PETITION IS MERITORIOUS AND NOT INTENDED FOR DELAY.5
A. THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONORABLE
COURT IN ENRICO V. SPS. MEDINACELI IS NOT From the arguments advanced by Cynthia, the principal question to be
APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE CONSIDERING resolved is whether or not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC entitled "Rule on
THAT THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE THEREIN ARE Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
NOT SIMILAR TO THE INSTANT CASE. Voidable Marriages," is applicable to the case at bench.

B. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE Petitioner argues that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is also applicable to
PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COURT IS marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code.
APLLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE, ITS RULING IN According to Cynthia, the CA erroneously anchored its decision to
ENRICO V. SPS. MEDINACELI IS PATENTLY an obiter dictum in the aforecited Enrico case, which did not even involve
ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE PHRASE "UNDER THE a marriage solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code.
FAMILY CODE" IN A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC PERTAINS
TO THE WORD "PETITIONS" RATHER THAN TO THE She added that, even assuming arguendo that the pronouncement in the
WORD "MARRIAGES." said case constituted a decision on its merits, still the same cannot be
applied because of the substantial disparity in the factual milieu of the
C. FROM THE FOREGOING, A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC Enrico case from this case. In the said case, both the marriages sought
ENTITLED "RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE to be declared null were solemnized, and the action for declaration of
NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT nullity was filed, after the effectivity of both the Family Code in 1988 and
OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES" IS APPLICABLE TO of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC in 2003. In this case, the marriage was
MARRIAGES SOLEMNIZED BEFORE THE solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code and A.M. No. 02-11-
EFFECTIVITY OF THE FAMILY CODE. HENCE, A 10-SC while the action was filed and decided after the effectivity of both.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A
PRECONDITION FOR AN APPEAL BY HEREIN Danilo, in his Comment,6 counters that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not
RESPONDENT. applicable because his marriage with Cynthia was solemnized on
February 14, 1980, years before its effectivity. He further stresses the
D. CONSIDERING THAT HEREIN RESPONDENT meritorious nature of his appeal from the decision of the RTC declaring
REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH A PRECONDITION FOR their marriage as null and void due to his purported psychological
APPEAL, A RELAXATION OF THE RULES ON incapacity and citing the mere "failure" of the parties who were
APPEAL IS NOT PROPER IN HIS CASE.
supposedly "remiss," but not "incapacitated," to render marital obligations prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking certain
as required under Article 36 of the Family Code. proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless
delays and to orderly and promptly discharge judicial business. By their
The Court finds the petition devoid of merit. very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory.12

Petitioner insists that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs this case. Her The appellate court was correct in denying petitioner’s motion for
stance is unavailing. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration considering that the
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. reglementary period for filing the said motion for reconsideration is non-
No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is extendible. As pronounced in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of
explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule, in fact, reads: Internal Revenue, 13

Section 1. Scope – This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of The rule is and has been that the period for filing a motion for
absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable reconsideration is non-extendible. The Court has made this clear as early
marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines. as 1986 in Habaluyas Enterprises vs. Japzon. Since then, the Court has
consistently and strictly adhered thereto.1avvphil

The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.

Given the above, we rule without hesitation that the appellate court’s
The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is justified, precisely
doubt. The coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during because petitioner’s earlier motion for extension of time did not
the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, suspend/toll the running of the 15-day reglementary period for filing a
1988.7 The rule sets a demarcation line between marriages covered by motion for reconsideration. Under the circumstances, the CA decision
the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code.8 has already attained finality when petitioner filed its motion for
reconsideration. It follows that the same decision was already beyond the
review jurisdiction of this Court.
The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to petitioner’s interpretation that
the phrase "under the Family Code" in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to
the word "petitions" rather than to the word "marriages." In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the RTC
decision which denied due course to respondent’s appeal and denying
petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for
A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and
reconsideration.
free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or
interpretation. There is only room for application.9 As the statute is clear,
plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and Appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. Its purpose is to bring
applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the up for review a final judgment of the lower court. The courts should, thus,
plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of his right to
animi sermo, or "speech is the index of intention." Furthermore, there is appeal.14 In the recent case of Almelor v. RTC of Las Pinas City, Br.
the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or "from the words of a 254,15 the Court reiterated: While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a
statute there should be no departure."10 natural right, nonetheless it is an essential part of our judicial system and
courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the
right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the amplest
There is no basis for petitioner’s assertion either that the tenets of
opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, free from the
substantial justice, the novelty and importance of the issue and the
constraints of technicalities.
meritorious nature of this case warrant a relaxation of the Rules in her
favor. Time and again the Court has stressed that the rules of procedure
must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the
mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.11 As a corollary, rules
In the case at bench, the respondent should be given the fullest DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
opportunity to establish the merits of his appeal considering that what is Associate Justice
at stake is the sacrosanct institution of marriage.
ATTESTATION
No less than the 1987 Constitution recognizes marriage as an inviolable
social institution. This constitutional policy is echoed in our Family Code. I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
Article 1 thereof emphasizes its permanence and inviolability, thus: consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a
man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the ANTONIO T. CARPIO
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family Associate Justice
and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and Chairperson, Second Division
incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that
marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage CERTIFICATION
within the limits provided by this Code.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
This Court is not unmindful of the constitutional policy to protect and Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
marriage as the foundation of the family.16 to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, RENATO C. CORONA
but a social institution in which the State is vitally interested. The State Chief Justice
finds no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The
break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence,
their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members.17

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Footnotes
SO ORDERED.
* Designated as an additional member in lieu of Justice Roberto
A. Abad, per Special Order No. 905 dated October 5, 2010.
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice 1
Rollo, pp. 43-48. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M.
Romilla-Lontok with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo
WE CONCUR:
(now a member of this Court) and Romeo F. Barza, concurring.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO 2
See Rollo, p. 8; see also Annex A of petition, rollo, p. 44.
Associate Justice
Chairperson 3
G.R. No. 173614, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 418, 427-
428.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
NACHURA CASTRO* 4
Annex B of petition; rollo p. 49.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
5
Rollo, pp. 12-14. Art. XV, Secs. 1-2 which provides:

6
Id. at 329. Sec. 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the
foundation of the nation.
7
Supra note 3, citing Modequillo v. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, May
31, 1990, 185 SCRA 766,722. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively
promote its total development.
8
Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, December 16, 2008, 574
SCRA 116, 132. Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
9
Amores v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. State.
No. 189600, June 29,2010, citing Twin Ace Holdings Corporation
17
v. Rufina and Company, G.R. No. 160191, June 8, 2006, 490 Azcueta v. Republic, G.R. No. 180668, May 26, 2009, 588
SCRA 368, 376. SCRA 196, 205, citing Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370,
March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 725, 740; Tuason v. Court of Appeals,
10
Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 326 Phil 169, 180-181 (1996).
519, 531, citing R. Agpalo, Statutory Construction 124 (5st ed.,
2003).

11
Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
185220, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 139, 143, citing Yutingco v.
Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 83 (2002).

12
Id., citing Gonzales v. Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1653, July 30,
2007, 528 SCRA 490.

13
510 Phil. 268, 274 (2005).

14
Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, 320 Phil 456, 460 (1995).

15
G.R. No. 179620, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 447, 460-461,
citing Salazar v. Court of Appeals, 426 Phil 864, 877 (2002),
citing Labad v. University of Southeastern Philippines, 414 Phil
815, 826 (2001).

16
Almelor v. Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Br. 253, G.R.
No. 179620, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 447 citing 1987
Philippine Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 12 which provides:

Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life

and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. x x x