You are on page 1of 2

CHA-TAN vs.

TAN TOPIC: RULE 16

FEBRUARY 25, 2010


PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
PETITIONER: Susie Cha-Tan
RESPONDENT: Jesse Tan

PETITIONER COURT RESPONDENT


CASE FOR DECLARATION RTC
OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
-ground: Art. 36, Family Code
The parties submitted a compromise agreement with respect to their properties & the support,
custody, and visitation of their children
RTC
(1) PARTIAL JUDGMENT:
APPROVED COMPROMISE A.
(2) DECISION: DECLARED
MARRIAGE VOID
-mutual psychological incapacity

RTC OMNIBUS MOTION TO


RESOLUTION (MAY): AMEND PARTIAL
AWARDED CUSTODY TO R JUDGMENT
-seeking main custody of the
children
-P brought children out of the
country wo his knowledge and
prior authority of court;
-did not comply with other
provisions of the compromise
agreement
MR DENIED
-denial of due process -filed beyond the 15-day
-unable to present evidence bec. reglementary period
of negligence of counsel in -declared P in contempt of court for
failing to appear in 2 hearings non-compliance with partial
judgment and resolution
MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED
AND MR -RTC Decision and Resolution had
-no longer interested in the suit become final and executory upon
the lapse of the 15-day reglementary
period wo timely appeal
-applied Sec. 7 of the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages
MR DENIED
PETITION FOR REVIEW
-WON the March Decision and SC
May resolution of the RTC DENIED
have attained finality despite
denial of due process

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE


CHA-TAN vs. TAN TOPIC: RULE 16

DISCUSSION:
1. Tuason v. CA: The decision annulling the marriage had already become final and executory
when the (husband) failed to appeal during the reglementary period
 Notice sent to the counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure
of the counsel to inform the client of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of the
latter’s right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular
on its face
2. Though P lost her right to present evidence, she actively participated in the proceedings in
through her counsel. Hence, no denial of due process
3. Sec. 71 of the Rule on Declaraton of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages is not applicable to the motion to dismiss filed by P
 Intent of the provision : to allow R to ventilate all possible defenses in an answer, so
that judgment may be made on the merits
 Provision applies only to a respondent, not a petitioner
4. When P filed the MTD, the March decision and May resolution of the TC had long become
final and executory upon the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period without any time appeal
filed by either party; TC was then correct in denying P’s motion to dismiss

1
Sec. 7. Motion to Dismiss. – No motion to dismiss the petition shall be allowed except on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over 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.
BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE