C. BOLOS vs. D. BOLOS G.R. No.

186400 October 20, 2010

FACTS:

On July 10, 2003, petitioner Cynthia Bolos (Cynthia) filed a petition for the declaration of nullity
of her marriage to respondent Danilo Bolos (Danilo) under Art. 36 of the Family Code, docketed
as JDRC No. 6211.

On January 16, 2007, judgment was rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch
69 (RTC) declaring the marriage between petitioner CYNTHIA S. BOLOS and respondent DANILO
T. BOLOS celebrated on February 14, 1980as null and void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity on the part of both petitioner and respondent under Article 36 of the
Family Code with all the legal consequences provided by law.

Respondent then filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
seeking to annul the orders of the RTC on January 16, 2007 declaring as final and executory

On December 10, 2008, the Court of Appeals in an original action for certiorari under rule 65
entitled “Danilo T. Bolos v. Hon. Lorifel Lacap Pahimna and Cynthia S. Bolos” reversedthe
January 16, 2007 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.

The appellate court in its decision stated that the requirement of a motion for reconsideration
as a prerequisite to appeal under A.M. 02-11-10-SC (Rule On Declaration Of Absolute Nullity Of
Void Mariages And Annulment Of Voidable Marriages) is not applicablein this case since the
marriage of Cynthia and Danila was solemnized before the Family Code took effect.

Moreover, the appellate court relied on its ruling in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinacelli stating
that “coverage of A.M. 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”.

Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
seeking a review of the December 10, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals.
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:

The Court of Appeals ruled that the categorical language in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is explicit in
its scope.

RATIONALE:

In Section 1 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, it reads
that:

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 Phillipines.

The categorical language being used clearly states that the coverage of this Rule extends only to
those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which became effective
on August 3, 1988. The Court therefore cannot apply merit to the petitioner’s interpretation
stating that “petitions” is being categorized in the phrase “under the Family Code” when the
Rule took effectivity.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that 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, only application. It must therefore be given its literal meaning and applied
without attempted interpretation in what is known as “plain-meaning rule” or verba legis. It is
expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or “speech is the index of intention”. Additionally,
there is also the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or “from the words of a status there
should be no departure.”