Cynthia Bolos vs.

Danilo Bolos October 20, 2010 Mendoza, J METHODS OF DETERMINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT: Verba Legis/ Literal Interpretation/ Plain Meaning Rule FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari of CA decision reversing RTC order pronouncing nullity of marriage between petitioner and respondent as final and executory Feb. 14, 1980 Cynthia and Danilo married July 10, 2003 Cynthia Bolos filed for declaration of nullity of her marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity (FC 36) August 2, 2006 - RTC: Declared marriage as null and void ab initio August 25, 2006 Danilo received copy of decision September 11, 2006 Danilo timely filed Notice of Appeal September 19, 2006 RTC denied due course to appeal for Danilos failure to file required motion for reconsideration or new trial, in violation of Sec 20, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. (file MFR first, if denied file appeal within 15 days) November 23, 2006 Motion to reconsider denial of appeal was denied January 16, 2007 RTC declared Aug. 2 decision as final and executory granting Motion for Entry of Judgement filed by Cynthia Danilo filed a petition for certiorari with the CA to annul orders of RTC as they were rendered with grave abuse of discretion by denying due course to Danilos appeal, denying motion to reconsider and declaring Aug. 2, 2006 decision as final and executory. He also prays to be declared psychologically capacitated to render essential obligations of marriage. CA: Granted petition and reversed RTC orders o In Enrico vs. Sps. Medinaceli, Court held that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies only to marriages after FC. MFR prior to appeal is not required in this case as their marriage was solemnized before FC took effect (Aug. 3, 1988) Cynthia filed a manifestation with motion to extend time to file MFR and motion of partial reconsideration but was denied as 15-day period cannot be extended. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner avers that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC promulgated on March 15, 2003 is applicable because doctrine in Enrico v Sps. Medinaceli is not applicable as it was mere obiter dictum and different from current case. She adds that the phrase under family code in said rule refers to petitions not marriages.
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.

ISSUES: Whether A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is applicable to the case (NO) Whether under the Family Code in said Rule refers to word petitions rather than to word marriages (NO) HELD: 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. As the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and

applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the plainmeaning rule or verba legis. The categorical language of the Rule leaves no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code. Thus, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not applicable to case and respondent should not be denied his right to appeal and be given opportunity to establish merits of appeal. CA decision affirmed. CAs denial of Cynthias motion to extend time for filing of motion for reconsideration is correct. Rules prescribing time for doing specific acts are indispensable and are regarded as mandatory.

MAXIMS: Index animi sermo, or speech is the index of intention. Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.