Republic v. Dimarucot

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202069. October 16, 2019.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.ALVIN C. DIMARUCOT AND NAILYN TAÑEDO-DIMARUCOT, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 October 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 202069 — REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, versus ALVIN C. DIMARUCOT and NAILYN TAÑEDO-DIMARUCOT, respondents.

Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration1 dated May 4, 2018 filed by respondent Alvin C. Dimarucot (Alvin).

It may be recalled that Alvin filed with the Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 (RTC) a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage 2 (RTC Petition) docketed as Civil Case No. 1527-G, seeking to declare his marriage with respondent Nailyn Tañedo-Dimarucot (Nailyn) null and void on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage.

After due proceedings, the RTC, through Judge Ismael P. Casabar rendered a Decision 3 granting the RTC Petition.

On July 27, 2010, petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought reconsideration 4 of the RTC Decision, arguing that Alvin failed to prove the juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of Nailyn's alleged psychological incapacity. The OSG's motion was denied. 5 The Republic thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal 6 on September 1, 2010 which the RTC likewise denied on procedural grounds. 7 EcTCAD

The Republic questioned the RTC's orders through a petition for certiorari8 filed before the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. This petition, in turn, was denied by the CA in its Decision 9 dated July 29, 2011 (Assailed Decision). The Republic subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA also denied its Resolution 10 dated May 24, 2012 (Assailed Resolution).

Undaunted, the Republic filed the present Petition.

On March 7, 2018, the Court issued a Decision 11 granting the Petition. The dispositive portion of said Decision reads, in part:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The [Assailed Decision] and [Assailed Resolution] in CA-G.R. SP No. 116572 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The [RTC] is DIRECTED to give due course to the Republic's Notice of Appeal dated September 1, 2010 and to elevate the case records to the [CA] for review. 12

In the present Motion for Reconsideration, Alvin prays for the termination of the proceedings on the ground of mootness, in view of Nailyn's death, thus:

x x x Respondent is seeking for a reconsideration of the Honorable Court's Decision on the ground that the Petition filed by the Republic is already moot and academic by reason of the death of [Nailyn] which extinguished the subject marriage by operation of law. To prove [Nailyn's] death, attached hereto is her Death Certificate issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority x x x[.]

x x x By reason of the death of [Nailyn], the marriage between her and [Alvin] has been extinguished, thus, the present action as well as the action for declaration of nullity of marriage instituted by [Alvin] before the trial court is already moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, [Alvin] respectfully prays unto the Honorable Court to reconsider and set aside its Decision dated [March 7, 2018] and to issue another one dismissing the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Republic and terminating the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1527-G before the [RTC] for being moot and academic. 13

The Court directed the Republic to file its comment on Alvin's Motion for Reconsideration within ten (10) days from notice. 14 SDHTEC

After seeking an extension of time to comply with the Court's directive, the Republic filed its Comment 15 on October 8, 2018. Therein, the Republic expressed no objection to the termination of the present case, "subject to the submission of the authenticated copy of the death certificate and confirmation of [Nailyn's death by her] counsel on record, Atty. Christopher Basilio" (Atty. Basilio). 16

The present case is governed by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (the Rules). Section 24 of the Rules states, in part:

SEC. 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.

The Court notes that Alvin's Motion for Reconsideration had been accompanied by an authenticated copy of Nailyn's Certificate of Death 17 issued by the National Statistician and Civil Registrar General of the Philippine Statistics Authority, Ms. Lisa Grace S. Bersales. The Certificate of Death confirms that Nailyn died of a gunshot wound to the chest on December 31, 2016. In this light, the Court finds further confirmation of such fact by Atty. Basilio unnecessary.

Thus, in accordance with Section 24 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity docketed as Civil Case No. 1527-G pending before the Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 is declared CLOSED and TERMINATED in view of respondent Nailyn Tañedo-Dimarucot's death, without prejudice to the settlement of the latter's estate in a separate proceeding. HSAcaE

Let entry of Judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official business."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 339-341.

2.Id. at 124-131.

3.Id. at 136-139.

4.Id. at 140-148.

5. See Order dated August 13, 2010; id. at 151.

6.Rollo, pp. 152-153.

7. See order dated September 13, 2010; id. at 154.

8.Rollo, pp. 155-182.

9.Id. at 95-107. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Angelita A. Gacutan concurring.

10.Id. at 110-114.

11.Id. at 325-336.

12.Id. at 335.

13.Id. at 339.

14. See Resolution dated July 2, 2018; rollo, p. 346.

15.Rollo, pp. 365-370.

16.Id. at 365.

17.Id. at 342-343.