G.R. No. 186400. October 20, 2010.

CYNTHIA S. BOLOS, petitioner, vs. DANILO T. BOLOS, respondent.

Husband and Wife; Marriages; 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. 02-
11-10-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.—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. The rule sets a demarcation line between marriages covered
by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code.
 Same; Same; Same; Statutory Construction; Verba Legis (Plain Meaning Rule); 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.—The Court finds Itself
unable to subscribe to petitioner’s 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. 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 or
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

430
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bolos vs. Bolos
verba legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or “speech is the index of intention.”
Furthermore, there is the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or “from the words of a statute there
should be no departure.”
Same; Same; Same; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Time and again the Court has stressed
that the rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere
expediency of claiming substantial merit.—There is no basis for petitioner’s assertion either that the
tenets of substantial justice, the novelty and importance of the issue and the meritorious nature of this
case warrant a relaxation of the Rules in her favor. Time and again the Court has stressed that the rules of
procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere expediency of
claiming substantial merit. As a corollary, rules prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking
certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless delays and to orderly and
promptly discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Motions for Reconsideration; The rule is and has been that the period
for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.—The appellate court was correct in denying
petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration considering that the
reglementary period for filing the said motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. As pronounced
in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 473 SCRA 490 (2005), the rule is and has
been that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. The Court has made this
clear as early as 1986 in Habaluyas Enterprises vs. Japzon, 142 SCRA 208 (1986). Since then, the Court
has consistently and strictly adhered thereto.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Appeals; While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural right,
nonetheless it is an essential part of our judicial system and courts should proceed with caution so as not
to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the amplest
opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. —
Appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. Its purpose is to bring up for review a final judgment of
the lower court. The courts should, thus, proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of his

431
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 431
 Bolos vs. Bolos
right to appeal. In the recent case of Almelor v. RTC of Las Piñas City, Br. 254, 563 SCRA 447
(2008), the Court reiterated: While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural right, nonetheless it is an
essential part of our judicial system and courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of
the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the amplest opportunity for the proper
and just disposition of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.
Same; Same; Same; Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but
a social institution in which the State is vitally interested—the break up of families weakens our social
and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members. —This
Court is not unmindful of the constitutional policy to protect and strengthen the family as the basic
autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Our family law is based on
the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the State is vitally
interested. The State finds no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break up of
families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the
family members.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
  
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Aileen L. Duremdes for petitioner.
  Clarence B. Jandoc for respondent.

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking a
review of the December 10, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in an original action for
_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 43-48. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with Associate Justices Mariano C.
Del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Romeo F. Barza, concurring.

432
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bolos vs. Bolos
certiorari under Rule 65 entitled “Danilo T. Bolos v. Hon. Lorifel Lacap Pahimna and Cynthia
S. Bolos,” docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 97872, reversing the January 16, 2007 Order of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 69 (RTC), declaring its decision pronouncing the
nullity of marriage between petitioner and respondent final and executory.
On July 10, 2003, 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,
docketed as JDRC No. 6211.
After trial on the merits, the RTC granted the petition for annulment in a Decision, dated
August 2, 2006, with the following disposition:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the marriage between petitioner CYNTHIA
S. BOLOS and respondent DANILO T. BOLOS celebrated on February 14, 1980 as null and void ab
initio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of both petitioner and respondent under
Article 36 of the Family Code with all the legal consequences provided by law.
Furnish the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan as well as the National Statistics Office (NSO) copy of
this decision.
SO ORDERED.” 2

A copy of said decision was received by Danilo on August 25, 2006. He timely filed the
Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006.
In an order dated September 19, 2006, the RTC denied due course to the appeal for Danilo’s
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.
On November 23, 2006, a motion to reconsider the denial of Danilo’s appeal was likewise
denied.
_______________

2 See Rollo, p. 8; see also Annex A of petition, Rollo, p. 44.

 433
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 433
Bolos vs. Bolos
On January 16, 2007, the RTC issued the order declaring its August 2, 2006 decision 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, to wit: 1) the September 19, 2006 Order which denied due
course to Danilo’s appeal; 2) the November 23, 2006 Order which denied the motion to
reconsider the September 19, 2006 Order; and 3) the January 16, 2007 Order which declared the
August 2, 2006 decision as final and executory. 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.
As earlier stated, the CA granted the petition and reversed and set aside the assailed orders of
the RTC. 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. It relied on the ruling of this Court in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli3 to the effect that
the “coverage [of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC] extends only to those marriages entered into during
the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.”
Cynthia sought reconsideration of the ruling by filing her Manifestation with Motion for
Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Partial Reconsideration
[of the Honorable Court’s Decision dated December 10, 2008]. The CA, however, in its
February 11, 2009 Resolution,4 denied the motion for extension of time considering that the
_______________

3 G.R. No. 173614, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 418, 427-428.
4 Annex “B” of petition; Rollo, p. 49.

434
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bolos vs. Bolos
15-day reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible, pursuant to
Section 2, Rule 40, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure citing Habaluyas v. Japson, 142 SCRA 208.
The motion for partial reconsideration was likewise denied.
Hence, Cynthia interposes the present petition via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising the
following
ISSUES

I
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ISSUING THE QUESTIONED
DECISION DATED DECEMBER 10, 2008 CONSIDERING THAT:
A. THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COURT IN ENRICO V. SPS.
MEDINACELI IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE CONSIDERING
THAT THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE THEREIN ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THE
INSTANT CASE.
B. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE
HONORABLE COURT IS APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE, ITS RULING
IN ENRICO V. SPS. MEDINACELI IS PATENTLY ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE
PHRASE “UNDER THE FAMILY CODE” IN A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC PERTAINS
TO THE WORD “PETITIONS” RATHER THAN TO THE WORD
“MARRIAGES.”
C. FROM THE FOREGOING, 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
 MARRIAGES SOLEMNIZED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE FAMILY
CODE. HENCE, A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A PRECONDITION
FOR AN APPEAL BY HEREIN RESPONDENT.

435
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 435
Bolos vs. Bolos
D. CONSIDERING THAT HEREIN RESPONDENT REFUSED TO COMPLY
WITH A PRECONDITION FOR APPEAL, A RELAXATION OF THE RULES ON
APPEAL IS NOT PROPER IN HIS CASE.

II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ISSUING THE QUESTIONED
RESOLUTION DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2009 CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING AND
THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

III
THE TENETS OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THE NOVELTY AND IMPORTANCE
OF THE ISSUE AND THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE JUSTIFY
AND WARRANT A LIBERAL VIEW OF THE RULES IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER. MOREOVER, THE INSTANT PETITION IS MERITORIOUS AND NOT
INTENDED FOR DELAY.5
From the arguments advanced by Cynthia, the principal question to be resolved is 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.
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 Cynthia, the CA erroneously anchored its
decision to an obiter dictum in the aforecited Enrico case, which did not even involve a marriage
solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code.
She added that, even assuming arguendo that the pronouncement in the said case constituted
a decision on its merits, still the same cannot be applied because of the substantial disparity in
the factual milieu of the Enricocase from this case. In the said case, both the marriages sought to
be
_______________

5 Rollo, pp. 12-14.

436
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bolos vs. Bolos
declared null were solemnized, and the action for declaration of nullity was filed, after the
effectivity of both the Family Code in 1988 and of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC in 2003. In this case,
the marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code and A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC while the action was filed and decided after the effectivity of both.
Danilo, in his Comment,6 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. He
further stresses the meritorious nature of his appeal from the decision of the RTC declaring their
marriage as null and void due to his purported psychological incapacity and citing the mere
“failure” of the parties who were supposedly “remiss,” but not “incapacitated,” to render marital
obligations as required under Article 36 of the Family Code.
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
_______________

6 Id., at p. 329.
7 Supra note 3, citing Modequillo v. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, May 31, 1990, 185 SCRA 766, 722.

437
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 437
Bolos vs. Bolos
line between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code.8
The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to petitioner’s 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 or verba legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or “speech is the
index of intention.” Furthermore, there is the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or “from
the words of a statute there should be no departure.”10
There is no basis for petitioner’s assertion either that the tenets of substantial justice, the
novelty and importance of the issue and the meritorious nature of this case warrant a relaxation
of the Rules in her favor. Time and again the Court has stressed that the rules of procedure must
be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere expediency of claiming
substantial merit.11 As a corollary, rules prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking
_______________

8  Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 116, 132.
9  Amores v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 593,
citing Twin Ace Holdings Corporation v. Rufina and Company, G.R. No. 160191, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 368, 376.
10 Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 519, 531, citing R. Agpalo, Statutory Construction
124 (5th ed., 2003).
11 Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 139, 143,
citing Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 83; 286 SCRA 85 (2002).

438
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bolos vs. Bolos
certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless delays and to
orderly and promptly discharge judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are regarded
as mandatory.12
The appellate court was correct in denying petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration considering that the reglementary period for filing the said motion for
reconsideration is non-extendible. As pronounced in Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue,13
“The rule is and has been that the period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible. The
Court has made this clear as early as 1986 in Habaluyas Enterprises vs. Japzon. Since then, the Court has
consistently and strictly adhered thereto.
Given the above, we rule without hesitation that the appellate court’s denial of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration is justified, precisely because petitioner’s earlier motion for extension of time did not
suspend/toll the running of the 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration. Under
the circumstances, the CA decision has already attained finality when petitioner filed its motion for
reconsideration. It follows that the same decision was already beyond the review jurisdiction of this
Court.”
 In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the RTC decision which denied
due course to respondent’s appeal and denying petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration.
Appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. Its purpose is to bring up for review a final
judgment of the lower court. The courts should, thus, proceed with caution so as not to deprive a
party of his right to appeal.14 In the recent case of
_______________

12 Id., citing Gonzales v. Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1653, July 30, 2007, 528 SCRA 490.
13 510 Phil. 268, 274; 473 SCRA 490, 496 (2005).
14 Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, 320 Phil 456, 460; 250 SCRA 371, 373 (1995).

439
VOL. 634, OCTOBER 20, 2010 439
Bolos vs. Bolos
Almelor v. RTC of Las Pinas City, Br. 254,15 the Court reiterated: While the right to appeal is a
statutory, not a natural right, nonetheless it is an essential part of our judicial system and courts
should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure
that every party-litigant has the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his
cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.
In the case at bench, the respondent should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the
merits of his appeal considering that what is at stake is the sacrosanct institution of marriage.
No less than the 1987 Constitution recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution.
This constitutional policy is echoed in our Family Code. Article 1 thereof emphasizes its
permanence and inviolability, thus:
“Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered
into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the
family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law
and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the
marriage within the limits provided by this Code.”
This Court is not unmindful of the constitutional policy to protect and strengthen the family
as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.16
_______________

15 G.R. No. 179620, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 447, 460-461, citing Salazar v. Court of Appeals, 426 Phil. 864,
877; 376 SCRA 459, 471 (2002), citing Labad v. University of Southeastern Philippines, 414 Phil 815, 826; 362 SCRA
510, 520 (2001).
16 Almelor v. Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Br. 253, G.R. No. 179620, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 447
citing 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 12 which provides:

440
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bolos vs. Bolos
Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social
institution in which the State is vitally interested. The State finds no stronger anchor than on
good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric
and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members.17
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro**and Peralta, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Note.—A meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language of
the statute cannot be placed therein by construction. (Government Service Insurance System vs.
Commission on Audit, 441 SCRA 532 [2004])
——o0o——
_______________

 Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. x x x
  Art. XV, Secs. 1-2 which provides:
 Sec. 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
 Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
 Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
State.
17 Azcueta v. Republic, G.R. No. 180668, May 26, 2009, 588 SCRA 196, 205, citing Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. No.
145370, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 725, 740; Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 169, 180-181; 256 SCRA 158, 169
(1996).
**  Designated as additional member in lieu of justice Roberto A. abad, per Special oder no. 905 dated October 5,
2010.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.