Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

ROQUE

v ENCARNACION
FACTS:
1. Asuncion Roque is married to Francisco Reyes and had two children with
him.
2. During their marriage, Roque acquired personal and real properties which
produced an income of P3,530.
3. Reyes committed concubinage with a woman named Elena Ebarle.
4. Reyes attempted to take away Roques life by giving her blows and strangling
her.
5. She filed a case in the CFI for:
Legal Separation
Legal Custody of the children
Liquidation of the Conjugal Property
Alimony and support for the children.
6. In the Reyes Answer:
Denied the concubinage and squandering of the income of the
properties.
Roques was already a married with a certain Policarpio Bayore when
she contracted marriage with him.
Fraudulently represented herself as single, without impediment to
contract marriage
Roque was squandering money obtained from him, trying to acquire
property in her own name.
Reyes prayed for: (a) Annulment; (b) Custody of children; (c)
Damages
7. Roque denied Reyes allegation.
8. Reyes filed a motion for summary judgment to which the Roque opposed on
the ground that an action for annulment can not be a ground for summary
judgment.
In support of the summary judgment, Reyes obtained the deposition
of Bayore and a certified copy of his marriage was submitted.
9. CFI granted the motion for summary judgment:
Declaring the marriage of Roque and Reyes as void ab initio for
concealing her true status.
Awarded the custody of the children to Reyes except for the younger
child.
Roques right to the conjugal property to be forfeited to their children
10. Hence, this petition:
Roque alleged that the trial court had no jurisdiction to render a
summary judgment in the action to annul the marriage.
At the time of the marriage with Reyes, she believed that her husband
(Bayore) was already dead.

ISSUE: W/N the counterclaim of Roque (that she believed that her husband was
already dead at the time of her marriage to the defendant) be decided by the
summary judgment proceeding.

HELD: NO. The SC held in the negative on the following grounds:
1. The SC held that an action to annul a marriage is not an action to recover
upon a claim or to obtain a declaratory relief.
Summary judgments are restricted for the recovery upon a claim
(recover a debt or liquidated demand for money).
2. Also, it is the avowed policy of the State to prohibit annulment of marriages
by summary proceeding.
The PH, being a predominantly Catholic and considers marriage as
indissoluble, is to be cautious and strict in granting annulment of
marriage.
Also, the Rules of Court expressly prohibit annulment of marriages
without actual trial (Section 10, Rule 35)