G.R. No. 212860, March 14, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the time of their marriage, the spouses were both Filipinos and were already blessed with a son, Christian Gabriel Manongdo who was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America (USA). On August 23, 2002, Rhomel filed a Petition for Divorce before the Family Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on the ground that their marriage was irretrievably broken. This was granted by the issuance of a decree that stated that the bonds of matrimony between [Rhomel] and [Florie] are dissolved and the parties are restored to the status of single persons, and either party is permitted to marry from and after the effective date of this decree. Seven years later, Florie commenced a petition for recognition of foreign judgment granting the divorce before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the petition and declared Florie to be capacitated to remarry. Rhomel filed a Notice of Appeal but the RTC, believing that the petition was covered by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC denied the appeal because the notice was not preceded by a motion for reconsideration. Rhomel then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA claiming that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion but the CA denied the petition.
The Supreme Court ruled that it was error for the RTC to use as basis for denial of petitioner’s appeal Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. A decree of absolute divorce procured abroad is different from annulment as defined by our family laws. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC only covers void and voidable marriages that are specifically cited and enumerated in the Family Code of the Philippines. Since Florie followed the procedure for cancellation of entry in the civil registry, a special proceeding governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from the RTC decision should be governed by Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Although the Court agrees with petitioner that the RTC erroneously misapplied A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Court denied the petition as such error does not automatically equate to grave abuse of discretion.
FACTS:
On July 31, 1995, petitioner Rhomel Gagarin Cote (Rhomel) and respondent Florie Grace Manongdo-Cote (Florie) were married in Quezon City. At the time of their marriage, the spouses were both Filipinos and were already blessed with a son, Christian Gabriel Manongdo who was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America (USA). On August 23, 2002, Rhomel filed a Petition for Divorce before the Family Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on the ground that their marriage was irretrievably broken. This was granted on August 23, 2002 by the issuance of a decree that stated that the bonds of matrimony between [Rhomel] and [Florie] are dissolved and the parties are restored to the status of single persons, and either party is permitted to marry from and after the effective date of this decree. Seven years later, Florie commenced a petition for recognition of foreign judgment granting the divorce before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Florie also prayed for the cancellation of her marriage contract, hence, she also impleaded the Civil Registry of Quezon City and the National Statistics Office (NSO). The RTC granted the petition and declared Florie to be capacitated to remarry after the RTC’s decision attained finality and a decree of absolute nullity has been issued. The RTC ruled, inter alia, that Rhomel was already an American citizen when he obtained the divorce decree. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2011. However, the RTC, believing that the petition was covered by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, applied Section 20 of said Rule and denied the appeal because the notice was not preceded by a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA claiming that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. In a Decision dated January 21, 2014, the CA denied the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC 12 applies in a case involving recognition of a foreign decree of divorce – NO
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The CA is correct when it ruled that the trial court misapplied Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. A decree of absolute divorce procured abroad is different from annulment as defined by our family laws. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC only covers void and voidable marriages that are specifically cited and enumerated in the Family Code of the Philippines. Void and voidable marriages contemplate a situation wherein the basis for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage. It treats the marriage as if it never existed. Divorce, on the other hand, ends a legally valid marriage and is usually due to circumstances arising after the marriage. It was error for the RTC to use as basis for denial of petitioner’s appeal Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Since Florie followed the procedure for cancellation of entry in the civil registry, a special proceeding governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from the RTC decision should be governed by Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Although the Court agrees with petitioner that the RTC erroneously misapplied A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, such error does not automatically equate to grave abuse of discretion.