Bolos vs Bolos
G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010
Cynthia S. Bolos, petitioner
Vs.
Danilo T. Bolos, Respondent
Doctrine: Statutory Construction; Verba Legis (Plain Meaning Rule); A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation—there is only room for application. Bolos vs. Bolos, 634 SCRA 429, G.R. No. 186400 October 20, 2010
Facts:
On February 14, 1980, Cynthia and Danilo bolos got married. On July 10, 2003, nonetheless, Cynthia Bolos filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Danilo Bolos under Article 36 of the family code. On January 16, 2007, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City rendered judgment declaring that the marriage between petitioner Cynthia Bolos and Respondent Danilo which was celebrated on February 14, 1980, null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of both of them with legal consequences provided by law. It was declared as final and executory.
On the other hand, the respondent Danilo Bolos filled with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to void the orders of Regional Trial Court regarding their marriage on the ground that the RTC rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. As a response, CA granted the petition and reversed the case stating 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 between Cynthia and Danilo was solemnized on February 14, 1980, before the Family Code took effect. It relied on the ruling of this Court in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli to the effect that the “coverage [of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC] extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.” Bolos vs. Bolos, 634 SCRA 429, G.R. No. 186400 October 20, 2010
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its ruling because the phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M. 02-11-10-SC pertains to the word “petitions” rather than to the word “marriages”
Ruling:
No. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule reads: “Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.” Therefore, the categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. Bolos vs. Bolos, 634 SCRA 429, G.R. No. 186400 October 20, 2010
Full Text
G.R. No. 186400 – Cynthia S. Bolos vs. Danilo T. Bolos (chanrobles.com)
