Chan-Tan vs.

Tan
G.R. No. 167139
February 25, 2010
Carpio
FACTS:

1. In 2001, twelve years after their marriage, Susie Chan-Tan petitioned her marriage with
Jesse Tan to be annulled for mutual psychological incapacity and submitted a
compromise agreement in court.

2. On July 2003, the court issued a partial judgment on the compromise agreement and in
March 2004, the court declared their marriage void incorporating the compromise
agreement on custody, support, visitation and property relations.

3. Susie then after brought her children with her abroad without the consent of the party
and the trial court. Also she did not purchase the land specified in the agreement
and authorized Megaworld Corp. to sell it.

4. Upon Jesse Tans petition the trial court issued a resolution dated March 2004 awarding
him the custody of the children and ordering Susie to return titles and documents
to his name, as well as allowing him to stay in their family dwelling.

5. Susie appeal was denied by the court in October 2004, as they are unconvinced and as
it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. It also declared her in
contempt for non-compliance and denied her prayer for increase in monthly
support.

6. She then filed a motion for reconsideration and motion to dismiss the October
resolution and to vacate all prior ruling putting parties in status quo ante the filing
of suit.

7. On December 2004 this was both denied as the resolutions have become final and
executory upon the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period.

8. Undeterred she filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the court. The
court then issued a Certificate of Finality.
Issue: Does the March and May resolutions attain finality despite the alleged denial of
due process?

Held: Yes.

RATIO/RULING:

The issue her has been settled in the case Tuason v. CA, wherein court the decided the
case based only on the one side presenting evidence as the husband who have failed to
attend prior hearings is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence.

She also could not claim that she was denied due process as the records show that her
attorney and her wife tried to contact her to no avail proved her disinterest of the
proceedings.

Section 7 on the Rules on Nullity of Marriage only applies to the respondent and not the
petitioner to enable the respondent to ventilate all possible answers. Therefore Susies
petition that it is against the preservation of family is without basis.

Rule 17, section 1 of the rules of court is suppletory to the Rule on Nullity of Marriage as
it allows dismissal of an action upon notice of the plaintiff. Her filing on November 2004
could not be accepted as it is beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The March and
May resolution may no longer be disturbed. A judgment that is final and executory is
immutable and unalterable based on public policy and sound practice that a decision
must be final at some date fixed by law.

Concept: Rule on Nullity of Marriage SEC. 7. Motion to dismiss. No motion to

dismiss the petition shall be allowed except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter or over the parties; provided, however, that any other ground that might
warrant a dismissal of the case may be raised as anaffirmative defense in an answer.
(Emphasis supplied)

Rule 17 Rules of Court Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff . A complaint

may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service
of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the
court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. x xx Section 2. Dismissal upon
motion of plaintiff . Except as provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall not
be dismissed at the plaintiffs instance save upon approval of the court and upon such
terms and conditions as the court deems proper.x x x (Emphasis supplied)