4. BOLOS V.

BOLOS
634 SCRA 429, [October 20, 2010]
FACTS:
Petitioner Cynthia Bolos filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her
marriage to Respondent Danilo Bolos under Article 36 of the FamilyCode. After trial on
the merits, the RTC granted the petition 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 petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the orders of the RTC as they 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 to marriages
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 Voidable Marriages, is applicable to the
case at bench.

HELD:
No, it does not.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. The rule sets a demarcation line
between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the
Civil Code. 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.
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.

3. Camacho- Reyes vs. Reyes

628 SCRA 461

A petition for review on certiorari attacking the decision of the Court of Appeals
reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City nullifying the marriage
between the petitioner Camacho and respondent Reyes on the ground of psychological
incapacity.
FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent were campus sweethearts. The formers love to the
latter did not change even when she discovered that respondent was cutting classes
and taking up marijuana. He did not even finish college. By the time they married each
other, all living expenses were shouldered by respondents parents, and they were living
with the respondents parents. When their first child was born, financial difficulties
started to come in. To prod respondent into assuming more responsibility, petitioner
suggested that they live separately from her in-laws. However, the new living
arrangement engendered further financial difficulty. Petitioner was a single-income
earner, and the business ventures of the respondent all floundered. The couple became
so estranged from each other that the respondent remained unconcerned and
inattentive, not only to the petitioner but also to their children. To make things worse,
petitioner was able to confirm that respondent was having an extra-marital affair.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the respondent is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the
essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.
2. Whether or not finding that Psychological Incapacity is curable will not warrant
a petition for annulment of marriage under Art. 36?
HELD:
Yes, there existed psychological incapacity. The marriage between the petitioner
and the respondent was nullified. Psychological incapacity was shown by respondents
1.) sporadic financial support; 2.) extra-marital affairs; 3.) substance abuse; and 4.)
failed business attempts. The high court found that the marriage between the parties
from its inception had this congenital infirmity which pertains to the inability of the
parties to effectively function emotionally, intellectually and socially towards each other
in relation to their essential duties to mutually observe love, fidelity and respect as well
as to mutually render help and support as mandated by Article 68 of the Family Code.
Such finding was anchored by the unanimous findings of three psychology experts:
petitioner manifested inadequacies along her affective sphere that made her less
responsive to the emotional needs of her husband, while the respondent manifested
strong sense of inadequacy along masculine strivings and narcissistic features that
renders him psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of
marriage. The Supreme Court further ruled that such psychological incapacity, as
stated by psychology experts, is permanent, incurable, and stable over time, and mere
recommendation of one psychology expert that the incapacity is curable does not
automatically imply curability. Therefore, the case has the gravity, juridical antecedence,
and incurability the three requirements of nullifying marriage based on psychological
incapacity.
.