Declaration of Nullity or Annulment cases where rules of procedure were relaxed

(1) Sy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000

In this case, the petitioner raised for the first time before the Supreme Court
the lack of marriage license as a ground for the declaration of nullity of her marriage
to respondent. The Supreme Court relaxed the rules of procedure and said:

“Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants cannot

raise an issue for the first time on appeal, as this would
contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice, in a number of
instances, we have relaxed observance of procedural rules,
noting that technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to
protect and promote substantive rights of litigants. We said that
certain rules ought not to be applied with severity and rigidity if
by so doing, the very reason for their existence would be
defeated. Hence, when substantial justice plainly requires,
exempting a particular case from the operation of technicalities
should not be subject to cavil. In our view, the case at bar
requires that we address the issue of the validity of the marriage
between Fillipina and Fernando which petitioner claims is void
from the beginning for lack of a marriage license, in order to
arrive at a just resolution of a deeply seated and violent conflict
between the parties. Note, however, that here the pertinent facts
are not disputed; and what is required now is a declaration of
their effects according to existing law.”

The Supreme Court in this case, however, emphasized that there were no
factual issues involved. The marriage was also declared as void ab initio in this case.

(2) Bolos v. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010

The Supreme Court did not technically relax the rules of procedure but held
that the appeal of respondent’s must be given due course. The Court said:

“Appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. Its

purpose is to bring up for review a final judgment of the lower
court. The courts should, thus, proceed with caution so as not to
deprive a party of his right to appeal. In the recent case of Almelor
v. RTC of Las Pinas City, Br. 254, the Court reiterated: While the
right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural right, nonetheless it is
an essential part of our judicial system and courts should
proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to
appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the
amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his
cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.

“In the case at bench, the respondent should be given the

fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his appeal
considering that what is at stake is the sacrosanct institution of
marriage.

“No less than the 1987 Constitution recognizes marriage

as an inviolable social institution. This constitutional policy is
echoed in our Family Code. Article 1 thereof emphasizes its
permanence and inviolability, thus:

Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of

permanent union between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with law for the
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the
foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and
incidents are governed by law and not subject to
stipulation, except that marriage settlements may
fix the property relations during the marriage
within the limits provided by this Code.

“This Court is not unmindful of the constitutional policy

to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous
social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.

“Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is

not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the State is
vitally interested. The State finds no stronger anchor than on
good, solid and happy families. The break up of families
weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their
preservation is not the concern alone of the family members.”