Bolos vs. Bolos

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs only petitions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988 onwards); consequently, the motion for reconsideration requirement under Section 20 of said Rule does not apply to appeals from judgments involving marriages solemnized under the Civil Code.

The case involves the intersection of substantive family law and procedural rules governing appeals in nullity cases. The dispute centers on whether procedural constraints introduced by the SC in 2003 (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) apply retroactively or territorially to marriages contracted decades earlier under the Civil Code, implicating the constitutional protection of marriage as an inviolable social institution.

• Original Filing: RTC of Pasig City, Branch 69, JDRC No. 6211; Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code filed by Cynthia on July 10, 2003.
• Lower Court Decision: August 2, 2006; RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio due to psychological incapacity of both parties.
• Appeal: Danilo filed a Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006 (received decision August 25, 2006). The RTC denied due course to the appeal on September 19, 2006, for failure to file a motion for reconsideration as required by Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Motion for reconsideration denied November 23, 2006. RTC declared decision final and executory on January 16, 2007.
• CA Action: Danilo filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (CA-G.R. SP. No. 97872) to annul the RTC orders. The CA granted the petition on December 10, 2008, reversing the RTC.
• SC Action: Cynthia filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 after the CA denied her motion for extension of time and motion for partial reconsideration on February 11, 2009.

• Nature of Action: Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on Article 36 (psychological incapacity) of the Family Code.
• The Marriage: Solemnized on February 14, 1980 between Cynthia S. Bolos and Danilo T. Bolos, placing it under the regime of the Civil Code (pre-August 3, 1988).
• RTC Ruling: After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on August 2, 2006, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio, finding both parties psychologically incapacitated.
• Procedural Posture at RTC: Danilo received the decision on August 25, 2006, and timely filed a Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006. The RTC, however, denied due course to the appeal via Order dated September 19, 2006, citing Danilo’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration or new trial as required by Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages). The RTC denied Danilo’s motion for reconsideration on November 23, 2006, and subsequently issued an Order on January 16, 2007, declaring the decision final and executory.
• CA Proceedings: Danilo assailed the RTC orders via Rule 65, arguing grave abuse of discretion. The CA reversed the RTC on December 10, 2008, holding that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code (post-August 3, 1988), relying on Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli.
• Finality Issue at CA: Cynthia filed a Manifestation with Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The CA denied these in a Resolution dated February 11, 2009, ruling that the 15-day reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible under Section 2, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, citing Habaluyas v. Japson.

• Applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC: Cynthia argued that the Rule applies to all petitions for declaration of nullity, regardless of when the marriage was solemnized. She contended that the phrase "under the Family Code" in Section 1 of the Rule modifies the word "petitions," not "marriages," meaning it governs the procedural mechanism (the petition) filed under the Family Code, not the temporal validity of the marriage itself.
• Distinction of Enrico:* She asserted that Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli is inapplicable because it was an obiter dictum and the factual milieu differed (in Enrico*, both the marriages and the filing occurred after the effectivity of the Family Code and the Rule, whereas here, the marriage was pre-Code but the filing was post-Rule).
• Relaxation of Rules: She argued that substantial justice, the novelty of the issue, and the meritorious nature of her case (respondent’s alleged delay) warrant a liberal view of the rules.

• Temporal Limitation of the Rule: Danilo countered that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly applies only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988 onwards). Since their marriage was solemnized in 1980, the procedural requirements of the Rule, specifically the motion for reconsideration prerequisite to appeal, do not apply.
• Merits of Appeal: He stressed the meritorious nature of his appeal, arguing that the RTC erred in finding psychological incapacity when the evidence merely showed "failure" or "remissness" to render marital obligations, not incapacity.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the CA gravely erred in denying Cynthia’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and her subsequent motion for partial reconsideration of the CA Decision dated December 10, 2008.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988), specifically regarding the requirement of a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal under Section 20 thereof.

• Procedural: The CA committed no reversible error in denying Cynthia’s motion for extension. The SC reiterated the doctrine in Habaluyas v. Japson and Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. CIR that the 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. A motion for extension of time does not suspend or toll the running of this period. Consequently, when Cynthia filed her motion for reconsideration after the deadline, the CA decision had already attained finality, placing it beyond the SC’s review jurisdiction.
• Substantive: A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to the Bolos marriage. Section 1 of the Rule states it governs petitions "under the Family Code of the Philippines." Applying the plain-meaning rule (verba legis), the SC held that this language unambiguously limits the Rule’s coverage to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988 onwards). The Rule establishes a clear demarcation line between marriages governed by the Civil Code and those governed by the Family Code. Therefore, the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying Danilo’s appeal for non-compliance with the motion for reconsideration requirement under Section 20 of the Rule. The right to appeal, while statutory, is essential to the judicial system, and courts must proceed with caution to avoid depriving a party of this right, especially where the inviolable institution of marriage is at stake.

• Plain-Meaning Rule / Verba Legis — When the language of a statute (or rule) is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation; it must be applied literally. Expressed in the maxims index animi sermo (speech is the index of intention) and verba legis non est recedendum (from the words of a statute there should be no departure).
• Non-Extendibility of the Motion for Reconsideration Period — The 15-day period to file a motion for reconsideration under the Rules of Court is absolute and non-extendible. A motion for extension of time to file does not interrupt the running of the period.
• Applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — The Rule governs only petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988 onwards). Marriages solemnized prior thereto remain governed by the Civil Code and the Rules of Court, suppletorily.
• Right to Appeal in Nullity Cases — Courts must exercise caution in dismissing appeals in nullity cases, given the constitutional and statutory policy protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family.

• A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Section 1 — Defines the scope of the Rule as governing petitions "under the Family Code," interpreted by the SC to mean marriages entered into during the Family Code’s effectivity.
• A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Section 20 — Requires a motion for reconsideration or new trial before appeal; held inapplicable to pre-Family Code marriages.
• 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 12; Article XV, Sections 1 and 2 — Cited to emphasize the State’s recognition of the sanctity of family life and marriage as an inviolable social institution.
• Family Code, Article 1 — Defines marriage as a special contract of permanent union and an inviolable social institution.
• Rules of Court, Rule 40, Section 2 — Cited by the CA regarding the 15-day non-extendible period for filing a motion for reconsideration.

None.