ERLINDA S. PADILLO, PETITIONER, VS. NUMERIANO VICTOR L. PADILLO, HONORABLE JOSE L. BAUTISTA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 107, RESPONDENTS.

Padillo versus Padillo

The Case

This is the case of Padillo versus Padillo, a petition for certiorari brought by Erlinda Padillo against her husband Numeriano Victor Padillo and the presiding judge of a branch of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Numeriano had sued to have their marriage declared void for lack of a marriage license, and the trial court granted him that relief. When Erlinda tried to appeal, the trial court refused to give her appeal due course because she had not first filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court believed was required by the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. The case matters because it fixes the reach of that Rule: it governs only marriages celebrated under the Family Code and only actions commenced after the Rule took effect, and it teaches that the right to appeal must not be lightly cut off, especially where a marriage is at stake.

Procedural History

Numeriano filed his petition or complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 107. On 8 June 2012, that court granted the petition and declared the marriage void from the beginning under Article 3, paragraph 2 and Article 4 of the Family Code. Within fifteen days from notice, Erlinda filed a notice of appeal, but the trial court did not give it due course because she had not first filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court deemed a precondition to appeal under Section 20 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Erlinda moved for reconsideration of that denial, arguing that the Rule did not apply because the petition was filed before the Rule took effect and the marriage was celebrated before the Family Code took effect. On 12 March 2013, the trial court denied her motion for reconsideration. Erlinda then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, asking that the order of 12 March 2013 be annulled and set aside.

Facts

On 21 May 1988, Erlinda and Numeriano entered into a contract of marriage in San Jose, Camarines Sur. That date fell almost three months before the Family Code took effect on 3 August 1988.

On 26 April 2002, Numeriano filed a petition or complaint to declare his marriage with Erlinda void on the ground of lack of marriage license. He later filed an amended petition or complaint on 5 June 2003. The amendment did not change his cause of action; it merely added supplemental facts on how he was allegedly persuaded to sign the document, which he claimed he did not know was a marriage contract.

On 8 June 2012, the trial court granted the petition and declared the marriage void from the beginning. Erlinda filed a notice of appeal within fifteen days, but the trial court refused to give it due course for want of a prior motion for reconsideration. It denied her motion for reconsideration on 12 March 2013, and she brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the denial of Erlinda's notice of appeal for failure to comply with the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages amounts to grave abuse of discretion.
• Whether or not the notice of appeal should be granted.
• Whether or not the denial of the motion for reconsideration is whimsical and capricious.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages states its scope:

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.

This provision confines the Rule to marriages governed by the Family Code, and the Court reads it to exclude a marriage celebrated before the Family Code took effect.

Section 20 of the same Rule provides:

Section 20. Appeal. (1) Pre-condition. No appeal from the decision shall be allowed unless the appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from notice of judgment. (2) Notice of appeal. An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal from the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the adverse parties.

This is the precondition the trial court applied against Erlinda, and the Court holds it has no application here because the Rule itself does not govern the case.

Section 2, paragraph a of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Modes of appeal. (a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

This is the correct mode of appeal that Erlinda pursued, and it requires no prior motion for reconsideration.

Section 3 of Rule 41 provides:

Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal. The appeal shall be taken within fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty days from notice of the judgment or final order.

Erlinda filed her notice of appeal within this period, so her appeal was timely.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court gravely abused its discretion. The Rule is explicit in its scope, and a plain reading leaves no room for doubt: it covers only marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code, which took effect on 3 August 1988. The Court applied the plain meaning rule, what it calls verba legis: a provision that is clear, plain and free from ambiguity must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Since Erlinda and Numeriano married on 21 May 1988, their marriage is beyond the coverage of the Rule.

The Court added that the Rule is procedural and is applied prospectively, confined to actions commenced after it took effect on 15 March 2003. Numeriano filed his petition on 26 April 2002, eleven months before the Rule took effect. His argument that the case was really commenced on 5 June 2003, when he filed his amended petition, failed. An amendment that does not alter the cause of action but merely supplements or amplifies the facts previously alleged does not affect the reckoning date of filing of the original complaint. The original and amended complaints had essentially identical allegations and causes of action, so the action is deemed commenced on 26 April 2002.

On the second issue, the Court held that the notice of appeal should be granted. Since the Rule does not govern, its requirement of a prior motion for reconsideration finds no application. Erlinda correctly pursued an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, which required no prior motion for reconsideration. The Court stressed that appeal is an essential part of the judicial system, meant to bring up for review a final judgment of the lower court, and courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. Erlinda should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of her appeal, because what is at stake is the sacrosanct institution of her marriage, an inviolable social institution in which the State is vitally interested in protecting and strengthening.

On the third issue, it followed that the denial of the motion for reconsideration could not stand, since it rested on a Rule that did not apply.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages governs only petitions under the Family Code, and so covers only marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Family Code, beginning 3 August 1988. Second, being a procedural rule, it applies prospectively, only to actions commenced after it took effect on 15 March 2003. Third, an amendment that does not alter the cause of action but merely supplements or amplifies the facts previously alleged does not change the date the action is deemed commenced. Fourth, where the Rule does not apply, the appellant need not file a prior motion for reconsideration and may take an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 within fifteen days from notice of judgment. Fifth, the right to appeal is an essential part of the judicial system and should not be denied except upon clear grounds.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted Erlinda's petition, reversed and set aside the order of 12 March 2013, and ordered the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 107, to grant her appeal.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages applies only to Family Code marriages and only to actions commenced after 15 March 2003, so outside its reach no prior motion for reconsideration is needed to appeal. Examiners use this case on the scope and prospective application of that Rule, on the effect of amendments on the reckoning of filing, and on the liberality owed to the right to appeal where a marriage is at stake.