This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-03-30 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC precludes the son from impugning the subsequent marriage. But in the case at bar, both Zorayda and Adib have legal personalities to file an action for nullity. Albeit the Supreme Court Resolution governs marriages celebrated under the Family Code, such is prospective in application and does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15,2003.[58] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| 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 line between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code.[8] | |||||
|
2010-08-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Based on Carlos v. Sandoval,[11] the following actions for declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage are excepted from the limitation, to wit: Those commenced before March 15, 2003, the effectivity date of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and | |||||