GR 130087; (September, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130087, September 24, 2003
Diana M. Barcelona, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Tadeo R. Bengzon, Respondents.
FACTS
On March 29, 1995, Tadeo R. Bengzon filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage against Diana M. Barcelona before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 87. He subsequently moved to withdraw this petition, which the court granted on June 7, 1995. On July 21, 1995, Bengzon filed a second Petition for Annulment, this time before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 106. Barcelona moved to dismiss the second petition on two grounds: failure to state a cause of action and forum shopping in violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The trial court initially deferred resolution but later, through a pairing judge, denied the motion for reconsideration, finding the petition sufficient and no forum shopping.
ISSUE
The issues are: (1) whether the allegations in the second petition for annulment sufficiently state a cause of action; and (2) whether the respondent violated the rule against forum shopping by filing the second petition.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the second petition sufficiently alleged a cause of action for annulment under Article 36 of the Family Code. A cause of action exists if the pleading alleges a legal right of the plaintiff, a correlative obligation of the defendant, and an act or omission by the defendant in violation of that right. The petition alleged the fact of marriage, the birth of five children, and that Barcelona was psychologically incapacitated from complying with essential marital obligations at the time of the marriage, detailing specific behavioral manifestations. These allegations, assumed to be true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, are sufficient to sustain a valid judgment if proven.
On the second issue, the Court found no forum shopping. Forum shopping exists when elements of litis pendentia are present or a final judgment in one case would constitute res judicata in another. Here, the first petition had been dismissed without prejudice upon Bengzon’s motion before he filed the second petition. Consequently, there was no pending case (litis pendentia) and no prior final judgment on the merits (res judicata) that would bar the second filing. The Court emphasized it was not prejudging the merits of the annulment case but merely ruling that the petition was not dismissible on the grounds raised. The trial court must still hear the case on its merits.