Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
v
ENCARNACION
FACTS:
1. Asuncion
Roque
is
married
to
Francisco
Reyes
and
had
two
children
with
him.
2. During
their
marriage,
Roque
acquired
personal
and
real
properties
which
produced
an
income
of
P3,530.
3. Reyes
committed
concubinage
with
a
woman
named
Elena
Ebarle.
4. Reyes
attempted
to
take
away
Roques
life
by
giving
her
blows
and
strangling
her.
5. She
filed
a
case
in
the
CFI
for:
Legal
Separation
Legal
Custody
of
the
children
Liquidation
of
the
Conjugal
Property
Alimony
and
support
for
the
children.
6. In
the
Reyes
Answer:
Denied
the
concubinage
and
squandering
of
the
income
of
the
properties.
Roques
was
already
a
married
with
a
certain
Policarpio
Bayore
when
she
contracted
marriage
with
him.
Fraudulently
represented
herself
as
single,
without
impediment
to
contract
marriage
Roque
was
squandering
money
obtained
from
him,
trying
to
acquire
property
in
her
own
name.
Reyes
prayed
for:
(a)
Annulment;
(b)
Custody
of
children;
(c)
Damages
7. Roque
denied
Reyes
allegation.
8. Reyes
filed
a
motion
for
summary
judgment
to
which
the
Roque
opposed
on
the
ground
that
an
action
for
annulment
can
not
be
a
ground
for
summary
judgment.
In
support
of
the
summary
judgment,
Reyes
obtained
the
deposition
of
Bayore
and
a
certified
copy
of
his
marriage
was
submitted.
9. CFI
granted
the
motion
for
summary
judgment:
Declaring
the
marriage
of
Roque
and
Reyes
as
void
ab
initio
for
concealing
her
true
status.
Awarded
the
custody
of
the
children
to
Reyes
except
for
the
younger
child.
Roques
right
to
the
conjugal
property
to
be
forfeited
to
their
children
10. Hence,
this
petition:
Roque
alleged
that
the
trial
court
had
no
jurisdiction
to
render
a
summary
judgment
in
the
action
to
annul
the
marriage.
At
the
time
of
the
marriage
with
Reyes,
she
believed
that
her
husband
(Bayore)
was
already
dead.
ISSUE:
W/N
the
counterclaim
of
Roque
(that
she
believed
that
her
husband
was
already
dead
at
the
time
of
her
marriage
to
the
defendant)
be
decided
by
the
summary
judgment
proceeding.
HELD:
NO.
The
SC
held
in
the
negative
on
the
following
grounds:
1. The
SC
held
that
an
action
to
annul
a
marriage
is
not
an
action
to
recover
upon
a
claim
or
to
obtain
a
declaratory
relief.
Summary
judgments
are
restricted
for
the
recovery
upon
a
claim
(recover
a
debt
or
liquidated
demand
for
money).
2. Also,
it
is
the
avowed
policy
of
the
State
to
prohibit
annulment
of
marriages
by
summary
proceeding.
The
PH,
being
a
predominantly
Catholic
and
considers
marriage
as
indissoluble,
is
to
be
cautious
and
strict
in
granting
annulment
of
marriage.
Also,
the
Rules
of
Court
expressly
prohibit
annulment
of
marriages
without
actual
trial
(Section
10,
Rule
35)