GLORIA G. JOCSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO R. ROBLES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On February 4, 1963, Gloria G. Jocson
commenced in the Juvenile 6 Domestic Relations Court an action for the
annulment of marriage to Ricardo R. Robles (Civ. Case
No. E-00013), on the ground that it was bigamous.  It was alleged in the amended complaint
previous to his marriage to plaintiff on May 27, 1958,
defendants Robles had contracted a first marriage with Josefina Fausto, who had instituted a criminal action for Bigamy
against the same defendant in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Crim. Case No. 64124). 
Plaintiff also demanded from the defendant moral and exemplary damages,
attorneys’ fees, and costs, claiming that during their cohabitation, she was
subjected to physical maltreatment by her husband, resulting in the premature
birth of their first child, who died three days later.

In his answer, defendant also assailed the validity of the
marriage.  But he charged plaintiffs’
parents with having compelled him by force, threat and
intimidation, to contract that marriage with her notwithstanding their
knowledge that he is a married man; and that said threat and intimidation
allegedly persisted until January, 1963 when he was finally able to get away
and live apart from the plaintiff.

Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, on the
ground that no genuine issue of fact is involved in the case.  It was claimed that defendant’s contention,
that his consent to the marriage was secured by force and intimidation employed
upon his person by the relatives of plaintiff, was allegedly supported by the
joint affidavit of plaintiff’s father and brother, dated October 28, 1963,
attached to the motion (pp. 22-32, Record on Appeal).  Plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted the
case for judgment on the pleadings.

On December 23, 1963, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was
denied, the court ruling that before it can pass upon plaintiff’s prayer for
the declaration of nullity of her marriage to defendant, there is necessity for
proof that when he contracted marriage with plaintiff, defendant Robles had a
previous and subsisting valid marriage. 
The evidentiary requirement to establish these facts, according to the
court, was not met in the motion for summary judgment.  Defendant’s plea to have his marriage
declared as having been brought about by force and intimidation, was also
denied, the court finding indications of collusion between the parties in their
attempt to secure the nullification of said marriage.  Reconsideration of this order, sought by defendant,
was denied on January 18, 1964.  And,
when both parties failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on March 9, 1964,
the court directed the dismissal of the action.

On April 17, 1964, defendant notified the court below of his
intention to appeal to this Court from the abovementioned orders of December
23, 1963, January 18, 1964, and March 9, 1964. 
The appeal bond and amended record on appeal, dated April 15, 1964, were
thereafter approved.

It is noted that, as specified in the notice of appeal, defendant
is taking exception from the lower court’s orders of December 23, 1963, January
18, 1964, and March 9, 1964; however, there is no indication or certification
or proof that the filing of the appeal notice, bond and record on appeal on
April 17, 1964 were made within the reglementary
period, as required by the provisions of Section 6, Revised Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court.  Thereunder,
the record on appeal must contain, not only the full names of all the parties
to the proceeding, as well as the pleadings, petitions, motions and orders
related to the order or judgment subject of the anneal and which are necessary
for the proper understanding of the issue involved therein, but also “such
data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time.” This
requirement, incorporated in the new Rules of Court to enable the appellate
courts to determine without protracted inquiry whether an appeal was timely
made or not, was held to be jurisdictional, failure to comply with which shall
cause the dismissal of the appeal.^[1]
There is here no showing that the present appeal was perfected within the reglementary period, which datum should have appeared in
the record on appeal.

On the merits, we are satisfied that the Court of Domestic Relations
correctly denied the motion for summary judgment in view of the first paragraph
of Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, that expressly
prohibit the rendition of a decree of annulment of a marriage upon a
stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment.  The affidavits annexed to the petition for
summary judgment practically amount to these methods not countenanced by the
Civil Code.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, this proceeding is hereby
dismissed conformable to Section (a) of Revised Rule 50 of the Rules of Court,
and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. 
Costs against the appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Atlas Consolidated Mining & Development Corporation vs. Progressive
Labor Association, G. R. No. L-27125, September 15, 1967.