G.R. No. 249953 , June 23, 2021
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Mel Via T. Villacorta, Respondent.

FACTS

Melvin T. Villacorta (Melvin) and Janufi Sol P. Villacorta (Janufi) were married on August 14, 2004. Prior to the marriage, they had reconciled in March 2001 after a period of separation. In April 2001, Melvin learned Janufi was one month pregnant. Although doubtful because they had only had sexual intercourse in March, Melvin accepted Janufi’s assurance that he was the father. Their first child, Mejan Dia, was born on December 1, 2001. They began cohabiting and later had a second child, Javen Mel, born on October 18, 2004. During their marriage, quarrels often involved Mejan Dia’s paternity. In 2010, Melvin obtained a DNA test which revealed a 0.0% probability he was Mejan Dia’s father. Janufi subsequently sent text messages admitting a one-time encounter with another man while drunk, but expressed shock at the DNA result. Melvin filed a petition for annulment of marriage based on fraud under Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(2) of the Family Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) annulled the marriage, ruling that Janufi fraudulently concealed her pregnancy by another man before the marriage. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the OSG’s appeal for failure to file the appellate brief within a reasonable period, despite the OSG’s motion for extension and subsequent filing. The OSG filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the OSG’s appeal for failure to file the appellate brief on time.
2. Whether the RTC erred in annulling the marriage on the ground of fraud under Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(2) of the Family Code.

RULING

1. On the procedural issue: The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred in dismissing the appeal. While the OSG’s proof of timely filing its motion for extension (registry receipts and affidavit) was deficient under Rule 13, Section 12 of the Rules of Court, the Court, in the interest of substantial justice, considered the motion as timely filed. More importantly, the OSG’s appellate brief was timely filed. The OSG requested an extension until May 1, 2019. May 1, 2019, was a legal holiday; thus, under Rule 22, Section 1, the period ran until the next working day, May 2, 2019. The CA admitted receiving the brief on May 2, 2019, making it timely. Technical rules should promote, not frustrate, justice.
2. On the substantive issue: The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC manifestly erred in annulling the marriage. Article 46(2) of the Family Code allows annulment based on fraud if, at the time of the marriage, the wife was pregnant by a man other than her husband and concealed this fact. In this case, Mejan Dia was born on December 1, 2001, and was nearly three years old when Melvin and Janufi married on August 14, 2004. Janufi was not pregnant at the time of the marriage. Therefore, the essential factual requirement of Article 46(2) is absent. The fraud alleged (concealment of pre-marital pregnancy resulting in a child) does not constitute a ground for annulment under the Family Code, as the law specifically limits the ground to concealment of a pregnancy existing at the time of the wedding. The state has a strong interest in preserving marriage, and annulment is allowed only for grounds specifically prescribed by law. The text messages also indicated Janufi may have honestly believed Melvin was the father, negating fraudulent intent. Consequently, the RTC decision annulling the marriage was reversed.