This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-03-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and hence can only question.the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution.[57] | |||||
|
2010-08-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Section 2, paragraph (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly provides the limitation that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Such limitation demarcates a line to distinguish between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the regime of the Civil Code.[9] Specifically, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC extends only to marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, but, being a procedural rule that is prospective in application, is confined only to proceedings commenced after March 15, 2003.[10] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Immediately apparent is that the instant petition disregards the hierarchy of courts. While our original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs is not exclusive - it is shared with the Court of Appeals (CA) and the RTC - the choice of where to file the petition for certiorari is not left entirely to the party seeking the writ.[15] The principle of hierarchy of courts serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for the said petition. A becoming regard for judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first-level courts should be filed with the RTC; and those against the latter, with the CA.[16] A direct recourse to this Court is warranted only where there are special and compelling reasons specifically alleged in the petition to justify such action.[17] As a court of last resort, this Court should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance.[18] This is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent the further over-crowding of the Court's docket.[19] | |||||