[G.R. No. 130087.

September 24, 2003]

DIANA M. BARCELONA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TADEO R. BENGZON, respondents

The Case

The Petition for Review before us assails the 30 May 1997 Decision[1] as well as the 7 August 1997
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43393. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order[2] dated
21 January 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106, in Civil Case No. Q-95-24471. The
Regional Trial Court refused to dismiss private respondents Petition for Annulment of Marriage for failure to state
a cause of action and for violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The assailed Resolution
denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.

The Facts

On 29 March 1995, private respondent Tadeo R. Bengzon (respondent Tadeo) filed a Petition for Annulment
of Marriage against petitioner Diana M. Barcelona (petitioner Diana). The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
Q-95-23445 (first petition) before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87.[3] On 9 May 1995,
respondent Tadeo filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition which the trial court granted in its Order dated 7 June
1995.

On 21 July 1995, respondent Tadeo filed anew a Petition for Annulment of Marriage against petitioner
Diana. This time, the case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-24471 (second petition) before the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106 (trial court).

Petitioner Diana filed a Motion to Dismiss the second petition on two grounds. First, the second petition fails
to state a cause of action. Second, it violates Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 (Circular No. 04-
94) on forum shopping. Respondent Tadeo opposed the Motion to which petitioner Diana filed Additional
Arguments in Support of the Motion.

The trial court, through Judge Julieto P. Tabiolo, issued on 18 September 1996 an Order (first order)
deferring resolution of the Motion until the parties ventilate their arguments in a hearing. Petitioner Diana filed a
motion for reconsideration. However, the trial court, through Pairing Judge Rosalina L. Luna Pison, issued on 21
January 1997 an Order (second order) denying the motion. In denying the motion for reconsideration, Judge
Pison explained that when the ground for dismissal is the complaints failure to state a cause of action, the trial
court determines such fact solely from the petition itself. Judge Pison held that contrary to petitioner Dianas
claim, a perusal of the allegations in the petition shows that petitioner Diana has violated respondent Tadeos
right, thus giving rise to a cause of action.Judge Pison also rejected petitioner Dianas claim that respondent
Tadeo is guilty of forum shopping in filing the second petition.Judge Pison explained that when respondent
Tadeo filed the second petition, the first petition (Civil Case No. Q-95-23445) was no longer pending as it had
been earlier dismissed without prejudice.

Petitioner Diana filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus before the Court of Appeals
assailing the trial courts first order deferring action on the Motion and the second order denying the motion for
reconsideration on 14 February 1997. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and denied the motion for
reconsideration.

Hence, this petition.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner Diana that the trial court in its first order erred in deferring
action on the Motion until after a hearing on whether the complaint states a cause of action. Nevertheless, the
Court of Appeals pointed out that the trial courts second order corrected the situation since in denying the motion
for reconsideration, the trial court in effect denied the Motion.The appellate court agreed with the trial court that
the allegations in the second petition state a cause of action sufficient to sustain a valid judgment if proven to be
true.

The Court of Appeals also held that there was no violation of Circular No. 04-94. To determine the existence
of forum shopping, the elements of litis pendentia must exist or a final judgment in one case must amount to res
judicata in the other. In this case, there is no litis pendentia because respondent Tadeo had caused the dismissal
without prejudice of the first petition before filing the second petition. Neither is there res judicata because there
is no final decision on the merits.

Issues

In her Memorandum, petitioner Diana raises the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE SECOND PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE
SUFFICIENTLY STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION;
II. WHETHER RESPONDENT TADEO VIOLATED SUPREME COURT ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 04-
94 IN FAILING TO STATE THE FILING OF A PREVIOUS PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE, ITS
TERMINATION AND STATUS.[4]
The Courts Ruling

The petition has no merit.

Sufficiency of Cause of Action

Petitioner Dianas contention that the second petition fails to state a cause of action is untenable. A cause of
action is an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the legal right of the plaintiff.[5] A complaint states a
cause of action when it contains three essential elements: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means
and under whatever law it arises; (2) an obligation of the defendant to respect such right; and (3) the act or
omission of the defendant violates the right of the plaintiff.[6]

We find the second petition sufficiently alleges a cause of action. The petition sought the declaration of
nullity of the marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code.[7] The petition alleged that respondent Tadeo and
petitioner Diana were legally married at the Holy Cross Parish after a whirlwind courtship as shown by the
marriage contract attached to the petition. The couple established their residence in Quezon City. The union
begot five children, Ana Maria, born on 8 November 1964; Isabel, born on 28 October 1968; Ernesto Tadeo, born
on 31 March 1970; Regina Rachelle born on 7 March 1974; and Cristina Maria born in February 1978. The
petition further alleged that petitioner Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the celebration of
their marriage to comply with the essential obligations of marriage and such incapacity subsists up to the present
time. The petition alleged the non-complied marital obligations in this manner:
xxx
5. During their marriage, they had frequent quarrels due to their varied upbringing. Respondent, coming from a
rich family, was a disorganized housekeeper and was frequently out of the house. She would go to her sisters
house or would play tennis the whole day.
6. When the family had crisis due to several miscarriages suffered by respondent and the sickness of a child,
respondent withdrew to herself and eventually refused to speak to her husband.
7. On November 1977, the respondent, who was five months pregnant with Cristina Maria and on the pretext of
re-evaluating her feelings with petitioner, requested the latter to temporarily leave their conjugal dwelling. She
further insisted that she wanted to feel a little freedom from petitioners marital authority and influences. The
petitioner argued that he could occupy another room in their conjugal dwelling to accommodate respondents
desire, but no amount of plea and explanation could dissuade her from demanding that the petitioner leave their
conjugal dwelling.
8. In his desire to keep peace in the family and to safeguard the respondents pregnancy, the petitioner was
compelled to leave their conjugal dwelling and reside in a condominium located in Greenhills.
9. This separation resulted in complete estrangement between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner
waived his right to the conjugal dwelling in respondents favor through an extrajudicial dissolution of their conjugal
partnership of gains. The separation in fact between the petitioner and the respondent still subsists to the
present time.
10. The parties likewise agreed on the custody and support of the children. The extrajudicial dissolution of
conjugal partnership of gains is hereto attached as Annex C and taken as an integral part hereof.
11. The respondent at the time of the celebration of their marriage was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential obligation of marriage and such incapacity subsisted up to and until the present time. Such
incapacity was conclusively found in the psychological examination conducted on the relationship between the
petitioner and the respondent.
12. Under Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is void ab initio
and needs to be annulled. This petition is in accordance with Article 39 thereof.
 The second petition states the ultimate facts on which respondent bases his claim in accordance with
Section 1, Rule 8 of the old Rules of Court.[9] Ultimate facts refer to the principal, determinative, constitutive
facts upon the existence of which the cause of action rests. The term does not refer to details of probative matter
or particulars of evidence which establish the material elements.[10]

Petitioner Diana relies mainly[11] on the rulings in Santos v. Court of Appeals[12] as well as in Republic
v. Court of Appeals and Molina.[13] Santos gave life to the phrase psychological incapacity, a novel provision
in the Family Code, by defining the term in this wise:
xxx psychological incapacity should refer to no less than mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to
be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the
parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations
to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that
the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases
of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance
to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. xxx.

Molina additionally provided procedural guidelines to assist the courts and the parties in cases for annulment of
marriages grounded on psychological incapacity.[14]

Petitioner Diana argues that the second petition falls short of the guidelines set forth
in Santos and Molina. Specifically, she contends that the second petition is defective because it fails to allege
the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. The second petition also fails to state that the alleged
psychological incapacity existed from the celebration of the marriage and that it is permanent or
incurable. Further, the second petition is devoid of any reference of the grave nature of the illness to bring about
the disability of the petitioner to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Lastly, the second petition did not
even state the marital obligations which petitioner Diana allegedly failed to comply due to psychological
incapacity.

Subsequent to Santos and Molina, the Court adopted the new Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (new Rules).[15]Specifically, Section 2, paragraph (d) of
the new Rules provides:
SEC. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages
x x x.
(d) What to allege. A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete facts
showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital
obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its celebration.
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological
incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be
alleged. (Emphasis supplied)

Procedural rules apply to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage.[16] The obvious
effect of the new Rules providing that expert opinion need not be alleged in the petition is that there is also no
need to allege the root cause of the psychological incapacity. Only experts in the fields of neurological and
behavioral sciences are competent to determine the root cause of psychological incapacity. Since the new Rules
do not require the petition to allege expert opinion on the psychological incapacity, it follows that there is also no
need to allege in the petition the root cause of the psychological incapacity.

Science continues to explore, examine and explain how our brains work, respond to and control the human
body. Scientists still do not understand everything there is to know about the root causes of psychological
disorders. The root causes of many psychological disorders are still unknown to science even as their outward,
physical manifestations are evident. Hence, what the new Rules require the petition to allege are the physical
manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity. Respondent Tadeos second petition complies with this
requirement.

The second petition states a cause of action since it states the legal right of respondent Tadeo, the
correlative obligation of petitioner Diana, and the act or omission of petitioner Diana in violation of the legal
right. In Dulay v. Court of Appeals,[17] the Court held:
In determining whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to support a cause of action, it must be borne
in mind that the complaint does not have to establish or allege the facts proving the existence of a cause of
action at the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case (Del Bros Hotel Corporation v.
CA, supra). If the allegations in a complaint can furnish a sufficient basis by which the complaint can be
maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the
defendants (Rava Devt Corp. v. CA, 211 SCRA 152 [1992] citing Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v. Court
of Appeals, 197 SCRA 663 [1991]). To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the
complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist rather than that a claim has been defectively
stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain (Azur v. Provincial Board, 27 SCRA 50 [1969]).
xxx. (Emphasis supplied)

A defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action hypothetically admits all
the factual averments in the complaint.[18] Given the hypothetically admitted facts in the second petition, the trial
court could render judgment over the case.
Forum Shopping

Similarly untenable is petitioner Dianas contention that the second petitions certificate of non-forum
shopping which does not mention the filing of the first petition and its dismissal without prejudice violates Circular
No. 04-94.[19] Petitioner Diana refers to this portion of Circular No. 04-94-
1. The plaintiff, petitioner, applicant or principal party seeking relief in the complaint, petition, application or other
initiatory pleading shall certify under oath in such original pleading, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto
and simultaneously filed therewith, to the truth of the following facts and undertakings: (a) he has not
theretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (c) if there is
any such action or proceeding which is either pending or may have been terminated, he must state the
status thereof; and (d) if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn
certification contemplated herein have been filed.[20]

Petitioner Diana points out that respondent Tadeo did not disclose in his certificate of non-forum shopping
that he had previously commenced a similar action based on the same grounds with the same prayer for
relief. The certificate of non-forum shopping should have stated the fact of termination of the first petition or its
status.

The Court has consistently held that a certificate of non-forum shopping not attached to the petition or one
belatedly filed or one signed by counsel and not the party himself constitutes a violation of the requirement. Such
violation can result in the dismissal of the complaint or petition. However, the Court has also previously held that
the rule of substantial compliance applies to the contents of the certification.[21]

In Roxas v. Court of Appeals,[22] the Court squarely addressed the issue of whether the omission of a
statement on the prior filing and dismissal of a case involving the same parties and issues merits dismissal of the
petition. In Roxas, the Court ruled:
xxx an omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would not constitute res
judicata and litis pendentia as in the case at bar, is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullification of the entire
proceedings considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the said certificate are not present. It is in this
light that we ruled in Maricalum Mining Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission that a liberal interpretation
of Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94 on non-forum shopping would be more in keeping with the objectives of
procedural rules which is to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

The dismissal of the first petition precluded the eventuality of litis pendentia. The first petitions dismissal did
not also amount to res judicata. Thus, there is no need to state in the certificate of non-forum shopping in the
second petition (Civil Case No. Q-95-24471) about the prior filing and dismissal of the first petition (Civil Case
No. Q-95-23445).

The first petition was dismissed without prejudice at the instance of respondent Tadeo to keep the peace
between him and his grown up children. The dismissal happened before service of answer or any responsive
pleading. Clearly, there is no litis pendentia since respondent Tadeo had already withdrawn and caused the
dismissal of the first petition when he subsequently filed the second petition. Neither is there res
judicata because the dismissal order was not a decision on the merits but a dismissal without prejudice.

Circular No. 04-94,[23] now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, must be interpreted and
applied to achieve its purpose. The Supreme Court promulgated the Circular to promote and facilitate the orderly
administration of justice. The Circular should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its
own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice
as expeditiously as possible.[24]

A final word. We are ever mindful of the principle that marriage is an inviolable social institution and the
foundation of the family that the state cherishes and protects.[25] In rendering this Decision, this Court is not
prejudging the main issue of whether the marriage is void based on Article 36 of the Family Code. The trial court
must resolve this issue after trial on the merits where each party can present evidence to prove their respective
allegations and defenses. We are merely holding that, based on the allegations in the second petition, the
petition sufficiently alleges a cause of action and does not violate the rule on forum shopping. Thus, the second
petition is not subject to attack by a motion to dismiss on these grounds.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The assailed Decision dated 30 May 1997 as well as the Resolution
dated 7 August 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43393 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
 A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC March 4, 2003

RE: PROPOSED RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGES AND

ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

R ES OLUTION
Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court submitting for this Court's
consideration and approval the Proposed Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.
The Rule shall take effect on March 15, 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not
later than March 7, 2003
March 4, 2003

RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF

VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

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 te Philippines.
The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.
Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.
(a) Who may file.- A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband
or the wife. (n)
(b) Where to file.- The petition shal be filed in the Family Court.
(c) Imprecriptibility ofaction or defense.- An Action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage shall not prescribe.
(d) What to allege.- A petition under Article 36 of Family Code shall specially allege te complete facts showing the
either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of
marriages at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
celebration.
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at
the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.
Section 3. Petition for annulment of voidable marriages.-
(a) Who may file.- The following persons may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriage based on any of
the grounds under article 45 of the Family Code and within the period herein indicated:
(1) The contracting party whose parent, or guardian, or person exercising substitute parental authority did
not give his or her consent, within five years after attaining the age of twenty-one unless, after attaining
the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabitated with the other as husband or wife; or the parent,
guardian or person having legal charge of the contracting party , at any time before such party has reached
the age of twenty-one;
(2) The sane spouse who had no knowledge of the other's insanity; or by any relative, guardian, or person
having legal charge of the insane, at any time before the death of either party; or by the insane spouse
during the a lucid interval or after regaining sanity, provided that the petitioner , after coming to reason,
has not freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;
(3) The injured party whose consent was obtained by fraud, within five years after the discovery of the
fraud, provided that said party, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, has not freely
cohabited with the other as husband or wife;
(4) The injured party whose consent was obtained by force, intimidation, or undue influence, within five
years from the time the force intimidation, or undue influence disappeared or ceased, provided that the
force, intimidation, or undue influence having disappeared or ceased, said party has not thereafter freely
cohabited with the other as husband or wife;
(5) The injured party where the other spouse is physically incapable of consummating the marriage with
the other and such incapability continues and appears to be incurable, within five years after the
celebration of marriage; and
(6) Te injured party where the other party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be
serious and appears to be incurable, within five years after the celebration of marriage.
(b) Where to file.- The petition shall be filed in the Family Court.
Section 4.Venue.- The Petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the
respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing. Or in the case of non-resident respondent,
where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner.
Section 5.Contents and form of petition.- (1) The petition shall allege the complete facts constituting the cause of action.
 (2) It shall state the names and ages of the common children of the parties and specify the regime governing their
property relations, as well as the properties involved.
If there is no adequate provision in a written agreement between the parties, the petitioner may apply for a
provisional order for spousal support, the custody and support of common children, visitation rights, administration
of community or conjugal property, and other matters similarly requiringurgent action.
(3) It must be verified and accompanied celebration of marriage. (b) Where to file.-The petition shall be filed in the
Family Court.
Section 4.Venue.- The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the
respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing, or in the case of a non-resident respondent,
where he may be found in the Philippines at the election of the petitioner.
Section 5.Contents and form of petition.- (1) The petition shall allege the complete facts constituting the cause of action.
(2) it shall state the names and ages of the common children of the parties and specify the regime governing their
property relations, as well as the properties involved.
If there is no adequate provision in a written agreement between the parties, the petitioner may apply for a
provisional order for spousal support, custody and support of common children, visitation rights, administration of
community or conjugal property, and other matters similarly requiring urgent action.
(3) it must be verified and accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. The verification and
certification must be signed personally by me petitioner. No petition may be filed solely by counsel or through an
attorney-in-fact.
If the petitioner is in a foreign country, the verification and certification against forum shopping shall be
authenticated by the duly authorized officer of the Philippine embassy or legation, consul general, consul or vice-
consul or consular agent in said country.
(4) it shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor
General and the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, within five days from the date of its filing and submit
to the court proof of such service within the same period.
Failure to comply with any of the preceding requirements may be a ground for immediate dismissal of the petition.
Section 6. Summons. - The service of summons shall be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and by the following
rules:
(1) Where the respondent cannot be located at his given address or his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service of summons may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication
once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and in such places
as the court may order In addition, a copy of the summons shall be served on the respondent at his last known
address by registered mail or any other means the court may deem sufficient.
(2) The summons to be published shall be contained in an order of the court with the following data: (a) title of the
case; (b) docket number; (c) nature of the petition; (d) principal grounds of the petition and the reliefs prayed for;
and (e) a directive for the respondent to answer within thirty days from the last issue of publication.
Section 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 an affirmative defense in an answer.
Section 8. Answer. - (1) The respondent shall file his answer within fifteen days from service of summons, or within thirty
days from the last issue of publication in case of service of summons by publication. The answer must be verified by the
respondent himself and not by counsel or attorney-in-fact.
(2) If the respondent fails to file an answer, the court shall not declare him or her in default.
(3) Where no answer is filed or if the answer does not tender an issue, the court shall order the public prosecutor to
investigate whether collusion exists between the parties.
Section 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor. - (1) Within one month after receipt of the court order mentioned in
paragraph (3) of Section 8 above, the public prosecutor shall submit a report to the court stating whether the parties are in
collusion and serve copies thereof on the parties and their respective counsels, if any.
(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists, he shall state the on the finding of collusion within ten days
from receipt of a copy of a report The court shall set the report for hearing and If convinced that the parties are in
collusion, it shall dismiss the petition.
(3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the court shall set the case for pre-trial. It shall be the
duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-trial.
Section 10. Social worker. - The court may require a social worker to conduct a case study and submit the corresponding
report at least three days before the pre-trial. The court may also require a case study at any stage of the case whenever
necessary.
Section 11. Pre-trial.-
(1) Pre-trial mandatory.- A pre-trial is mandatory. On motion or motu proprio, the court shall set the pre-trial after
the last pleading has been served and filed, or upon receipt of the report of the public prosecutor that no collusion
exists between the parties.

(2) Notice of pre-trial. - (a) The notice of pre-trial shall contain:

(1) the date of pre-trial conference; and
 (2) an order directing the parties to file and serve their respective pre-trial briefs in such manner
as shall ensure the receipt thereof by the adverse party at least three days before the date of pre-
trial.
(b) The notice shall be served separately on the parties and their respective counsels as well as on the
public prosecutor. It shall be their duty to appear personally at the pre-trial.
(c) Notice of pre-trial shall be sent to the respondent even if he fails to file an answer. In case of summons
by publication and the respondent failed to file his answer, notice of pre-trial shall be sent to respondent at
his last known address.
Section 12. Contents of pre-trial brief. - The pre-trial brief shall contain the following:
(a) A statement of the willingness of the parties to enter into agreements as may be allowed by law, indicating the
desired terms thereof;
(b) A concise statement of their respective claims together with the applicable laws and authorities;
(c) Admitted facts and proposed stipulations of facts, as well as the disputed factual and legal issues;
(d) All the evidence to be presented, including expert opinion, if any, briefly stating or describing the nature and
purpose thereof;
(e) The number and names of the witnesses and their respective affidavits; and
(f) Such other matters as the court may require.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief or to comply with its required contents shall have the same effect as failure to
appear at the pre-trial under the succeeding paragraphs.
Section 13. Effect of failure to appear at the pre-trial. - {a) If the petitioner fails to appear personally, the case shall be
dismissed unless his counsel or a duly authorized representative appears in court and proves a valid excuse for the non-
appearance of the petitioner.
(b) If the respondent has filed his answer but fails to appear, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial and require
the public prosecutor to investigate the non-appearance of the respondent and submit within fifteen days thereafter
a report to the court stating whether his non-appearance is due to any collusion between the parties. If there Is no
collusion, the court shall require the public prosecutor to intervene for the State during the trial on the merits to
prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence.
Section 14. Pre-trial conference. -At the pre-trial conference, the court:
(a) May refer the issues to a mediator who shall assist the parties in reaching an agreement on matters not
prohibited by law.
The mediator shall render a report within one month from referral which, for good reasons, the court may extend
for a period not exceeding one month.
(b) In case mediation is not availed of or where it fails, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial conference, on
which occasion it shall consider the advisability of receiving expert testimony and such other makers as may aid in
the prompt disposition of the petition.
Section 15. Pre-trial order. - {a) The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon termination of the pre-trial, the
court shall Issue a pre-trial order which shall recite in detail the matters taken up In the conference, the action taken thereon,
the amendments allowed on the pleadings, and except as to the ground of declaration of nullity or annulment, the
agreements or admissions made by the parties on any of the matters considered, including any provisional order that may be
necessary or agreed upon by the parties.
(b) Should the action proceed to trial, the order shall contain a recital of the following;
(1) Facts undisputed, admitted, and those which need not be proved subject to Section 16 of this Rule;
(2) Factual and legal issues to be litigated;
(3) Evidence, including objects and documents, that have been marked and will be presented;
(4) Names of witnesses who will be presented and their testimonies in the form of affidavits; and
(5) Schedule of the presentation of evidence.
(c) The pre-trial order shall also contain a directive to the public prosecutor to appear for the State and take steps to
prevent collusion between the parties at any stage of the proceedings and fabrication or suppression of evidence
during the trial on the merits.
(d) The parlies shall not be allowed to raise issues or present witnesses and evidence other than those stated in the
pre-trial order.
The order shall control the trial of the case, unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice.
(e) The parties shall have five days from receipt of the pre-trial order to propose corrections or modifications.
Section 16. Prohibited compromise. - The court-shall not allow compromise on prohibited matters, such as the following:
(a) The civil status of persons;

(b) The validity of a marriage or of a legal separation;

(c) Any ground for legal separation;
(d) Future support;
 (e) The jurisdiction of courts; and
(f) Future legitime.
Section 17. Trial. - (1) The presiding judge shall personally conduct the trial of the case. No delegation of the reception of
evidence to a commissioner shall be allowed except as to matters involving property relations of the spouses.
(2) The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved. No judgment on the
pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed.
(3) The court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons, including members of the press, who do
not have a direct interest in the case. Such an order may be made if the court determines on the record that
requiring a party to testify in open court would not enhance the ascertainment of truth; would cause to the party
psychological harm or inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or timidity; would violate
the right of a party to privacy; or would be offensive to decency or public morals.
(4) No copy shall be taken nor any examination or perusal of the records of the case or parts thereof be made by
any person other than a party or counsel of a party, except by order of the court.
Section 18. Memoranda. - The court may require the parties and the public prosecutor, in consultation with the Office of the
Solicitor General, to file their respective memoranda support of their claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is
terminated. It may require the Office of the Solicitor General to file its own memorandum if the case is of significant
interest to the State. No other pleadings or papers may be submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of the period
herein provided, the case will be considered submitted for decision, with or without the memoranda.
Section 19. Decision. - (1) If the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of
absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Article 50 and 51 of the
Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.
(2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and the public prosecutor, shall be served with copies of the
decision personally or by registered mail. If the respondent summoned by publication failed to appear in the action,
the dispositive part of the decision shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation.
(3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen days from notice to the parties. Entry of judgment
shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or new trial, or appeal Is filed by any of the parties the public
prosecutor, or the Solicitor General.
(4) Upon the finality of the decision, the court shall forthwith issue the corresponding decree if the parties have no
properties.
If the parties have properties, the court shall observe the procedure prescribed in Section 21 of this Rule.
The entry of judgment shall be registered in the Civil Registry where the marriage was recorded and In the Civil
Registry where the Family Court'granting the petition for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage is located.
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.
Section 21.Liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive
iegltimes.- Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition, or, in case of appeal, upon receipt of the entry of judgment of
the appellate court granting the petition, the Family Court, on motion of either party, shall proceed with the liquidation,
partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, including custody, support of common children and delivery of
their presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in
previous judicial proceedings.
Section 22. Issuance of Decree of Declaration of Absolute Nullity or Annulment of Marriage." (a) The court shall issue the
Decree after;
(1) Registration of the entry of judgment granting the petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of
marriage in the Civil Registry where the marriage was celebrated and in the Civil Registry of the place
where the Family Court is located;
(2) Registration of the approved partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, in the proper
Register of Deeds where the real properties are located; and
(3) The delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes in cash, property, or sound securities.
(b) The court shall quote in the Decree the dispositive portion of the judgment entered and attach to the Decree the
approved deed of partition.

Except in the case of children under Articles 36 and 53 of the Family Code, the court shall order the Local Civil
Registrar to issue an amended birth certificate indicating the new civil status of the children affected.
Section 23. Registration and publication of the decree; decree as best evidence. - (a) The prevailing party shall cause the
registration of the Decree in the Civil Registry where the marriage was registered, the Civil Registry of the place where the
Family Court is situated, and in the National Census and Statistics Office. He shall report td the court compliance with this
requirement within thirty days from receipt of the copy of the Decree.
(b) In case service of summons was made by publication, the parties shall cause the publication of the Decree once
in a newspaper of general circulation.
 (c) The registered Decree shall be the best evidence to prove the declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of
marriage and shall serve as notice to third persons concerning the properties of petitioner and respondent as well as
the properties or presumptive legitimes delivered to their common children.
Section 24. Effect of death of a party; duty of the Family Court or Appellate Court. - (a) In case a party dies at any stage of
the proceedings before the entry of judgment, the court shall order the case closed and terminated, without prejudice to the
settlement of the estate in proper proceedings in the regular courts.
(b) If the party dies after the entry of judgment of nullity or annulment, the judgment shall be binding upon the
parties and their successors in interest in the settlement of the estate in the regular courts.
Section 25. Effectlvity. - This Rule shall take effect on March 15, 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation not later than March 7, 2003.