Verba LEgis in this jurisprudence

The Court finds the petition devoid of merit. Petitioner insists that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs this case. Her stance is unavailing. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule, in fact, 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. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.

The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.[7] The rule sets a demarcation line between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code.[8]

BOLOS V. BOLOS 634 SCRA 429, [October 20, 2010] DOCTRINE: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage; The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 0211-10-SC, which the Court promulgated on 15 March 2003, extends only to

those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on 3 August 1988. FACTS: Petitioner Cynthia Bolos(Cynthia)filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Respondent Danilo Bolos (Danilo) under Article 36 of the Family Code. After trial on the merits, the RTC granted thepetition for annulment. A copy of said decision was received by respondent Danilo and he thereafter timely filed the Notice of Appeal. The RTC denied due course to the appeal for Danilos failure to file the required motion for reconsideration or new trial, in violation of Section 20 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Thereafter, the RTC issued the order declaring its decision declaring the marriage null and void as final and executory and granting the Motion for Entry of Judgment filed by Cynthia. Not in conformity, Danilo filed with the CA a petitionforcertiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the orders of the RTC asthey were rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. Danilo also prayed that he be declared psychologically capacitated to render the essential marital obligations to Cynthia, who should be declared guilty of abandoning him, the family home and their children. The CA granted the petition and reversed and set aside the assailed orders of the RTC declaring the nullity of marriage as final and executory. The appellate court stated that the requirement of a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply in this case as the marriage between Cynthia and Danilo was solemnized on February 14, 1980 before the Family Code took effect. Petitioner argues that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is also applicable

tomarriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. According to petitioner, the phrase under the Family Code in A.M. No. 02 -11-10-SC refers to the word petitions rather than to the word marriages. Such that petitions filed after the effectivity of the Family Code are governed by the A.M. No. even if the marriage

was solemnized before the same. Danilo, in his Comment, counters that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not applicable because his marriage with Cynthia was solemnized on February 14, 1980, years before its effectivity. ISSUE: Whether or not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC entitled Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of VoidableMarriages, is applicable to the case at bench. HELD: No, it does not. RATIO: The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as in fact, reads: Section 1. Scope.This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriagesunder the Family Code of the Philippines. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily. The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.7The rule sets a demarcation line between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code.8 The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to petitioners interpretation that the phrase under the Family Code in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the word petitions rather than to the word marriages. contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule,

In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the RTC decision which denied due course to respondents appeal and denying petitioners motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.

Verba LEgis in this jurisprudence The Court finds the petition devoid of merit. Petitioner insists that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs this case. Her stance is unavailing. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule, in fact, 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. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.

The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.[7] The rule sets a demarcation line between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code.[8] The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to petitioners interpretation that the phrase under the Family Code in A.M. No. 02 -11-10-SC refers to the word petitions rather than to the word marriages. 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. There is only room for application.[9] As the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule orverba

legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or speech is the index of intention. Furthermore, there is the maximverba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.[10]
Ratio Legis in Jurisprudence (see Pdf for Villanueva vs City of Iloilo)
"The spirit, rather than the letter, or an ordinance determines the construction thereof, and the court looks less to its words and more to the context, subject-matter, consequence and effect. Accordingly, what is within the spirit is within the ordinance although it is not within the letter thereof, while that which is in the letter, although not within the spirit, is not within the ordinance."15 It is within neither the letter nor the spirit of the ordinance that an additional real estate tax is being imposed, otherwise the subject-matter would have been not merely tenement houses. On the contrary, it is plain from the context of the ordinance that the intention is to impose a license tax on the operation of tenement houses, which is a form of business or calling. The ordinance, in both its title and body, particularly sections 1 and 3 thereof, designates the tax imposed as a "municipal license tax" which, by itself, means an "imposition or exaction on the right to use or dispose of property, to pursue a business, occupation, or calling, or to exercise a privilege."16

Mens Legislatoris
There are three well-settled principles of constitutional construction:first, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution should be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed; second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima, meaning that the words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers; and third, ut magis valeat quam pereat, meaning that the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.3

Election Laws Construction

Succinctly stated, laws and statutes governing election contests especially the appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. In applying elections laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms.

Pangandaman vs Comelec (GR No. 134340, 25 November 1999) Ynares-Santiago, J:

Facts:The cases were filed by petitioners asking the Commission to hold a special election due to a failure of election in twelve municipalities and a partial failure of election in eleven municipalities, which was granted. Thereafter, petitioner insist on a strict compliance with the holding of special elections not later than thirty (30) days after failure to elect pursuant to Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code Issue:Whether or not the 30 day period in holding a special election must be strictly complied with. Ruling:No. In fixing the date for special elections the Comelec should see to it that: (1) It should not be later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the cause of the postponement or suspension of the election or the failure to elect; and (2) It should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect. The first involves a question of fact. The second must be determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of a case. Thus, the holding of elections within the next few months from the cessation of the cause of the postponement, suspension or failure to elect may still be considered reasonably close to the date of the election not held. The provision invoked can not be construed in the manner that would defeat the purpose and spirit for which the law was enacted.