#4

CYNTHIA BOLOS VS DANILO BOLOS

(G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010)
FACTS:
Cynthia Bolos filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage invoking Psychological Incapacity
under the Family Code against her husband Danilo Bolos which the RTC granted her petition. Danilo
Bolos filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals and ruled that AM no 02-11-10-SC did not
apply to the case at bar as their marriage was solemnized Feb 14 1980 before the family code took
effect. The court procedure required a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal cases on
declaration of absolute nullity on void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages.

Cynthia filed this said petition to the Supreme Court contending that the appellate court erred in ruling
that their case is not covered by the Family Code, that AM no 02-11-10-SC pertains to the word
petitions instead of marriages, if the Family code covers the case then a motion of reconsideration is
a precondition for an appeal and since the respondent refused to comply with the precondition of filing
a motion for reconsideration, a relaxation on the rules of appeal is not proper.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the AM no 02-11-10 SC can be applied

RULING:
No. the court ruled that AM 02-11-10-SC is strict in its scope wherein section 1 of the rule reads:
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. Applying the rule verba
legis, the said section leaves no room for interpretation and is very clear that it would only cover
marriages under the new Family Code. Also it would only be applied to marriages not to petitions.
A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity,
there is no room for constructions or interpretations, there is only room for application. Therefore, the
said AM cannot be applied.