Flashcards in G.R. No. 186400 October 2010 (Bolos v Bolos) Deck (11):
Who is the petitioner?
Cynthia S. Bolos
Who is the respondent?
Danilo T. Bolos
What is the issue?
Whether or not A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC “RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES” is applicable to marriages solemnized before the effectivity of Family Code.
When did Mr. and Mrs. Bolos marry?
February 14, 1980
When did the Family Code take effect?
August 3, 1988
When did Cynthia Bolos file a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage
July 10, 2003
What was the ground of Cynthia to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to the respondent under Article 36 of the Family Code?
Psychological incapacity on the part of both petitioner and respondent
What are the arguments presented by Cynthia on her petition?
She argues that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is also applicable to marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. According to Cynthia, the CA erroneously anchored its decision to an obiter dictum in the aforecited Enrico case, which did not even involve a marriage solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code.
She added that, even assuming arguendo that the pronouncement in the 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 Enrico case from this case. In the said case, both the marriages sought to be declared null were solemnized, and the action for declaration of nullity was filed, after the effectivity of both the Family Code in 1988 and of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC in 2003. In this case, the marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code and A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC while the action was filed and decided after the effectivity of both.
What are Danilo's counter argument with respect to Cynthia's arguments?
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not applicable because his marriage with Cynthia was solemnized on February 14, 1980, years before its effectivity. He further stresses the meritorious nature of his appeal from the decision of the RTC declaring their marriage as null and void due to his purported psychological incapacity and citing the mere failure of the parties who were supposedly remiss, but not incapacitated, to render marital obligations as required under Article 36 of the Family Code.
What was the Court's decision?
The petition was denied.