5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On 1 February Order dated 14 February 2011, respondent was 2011, petitioner filed an Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration of the January 2011. The motion was denied by the RTC in open court on 8 considering that neither the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) nor furnished with copies of the motion. On 24 March 2011, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review, raising the sole issue of whether or not the RTC erred in ruling that she had no cause of action. Petitioner argues that under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, or the Rule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, it is solely the wife or the husband who can file a petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of a void marriage. Thus, as the state is not even allowed to file a direct petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of a void marriage, with even more reason can it not collaterally attack the validity of a marriage, as in a petition for declaratory relief. Further, petitioner alleges that under the law, a marriage – even one that is void or voidable – shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. Petitioner also argues that assuming a court judgment recognizing a judicial decree of divorce is required under Article 13 of the Family Code, noncompliance therewith is a mere irregularity in the issuance of a marriage license. Any irregularity in the formal requisites of marriage, such as with respect to the marriage license, shall not affect the legality of the marriage. Petitioner further claims that all the requisites for a petition for declaratory relief have been complied with. With respect to the failure to furnish a copy of the Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration to the OSG and the DFA, petitioner avers that at the time of the filing, the RTC had yet to issue a summons to respondent; thus, it had yet to acquire jurisdiction over them. Thereafter, the DFA, through the OSG, filed a Comment on the Petition. The latter raised the following arguments: (1) the Petition was improperly verified, as the jurat in the Verification thereof only stated that the affiant had exhibited “her current and valid proof of identity,” which proof was not properly indicated, however; (2) prior judicial recognition by a Philippine court of a divorce decree obtained by the alien spouse is required before a Filipino spouse can remarry and be entitled to the legal effects of remarriage; (3) petitioner failed to show that she had first exhausted all available administrative remedies, such as appealing to the Secretary of the DFA under Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8239, or the Philippine Passport Act of 1996, before resorting to the special civil action of declaratory relief; and (4) petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC was a mere scrap of paper and did not toll the running of the period to appeal. Hence, the RTC Order dated 14 January 2011 is now final. On 29 November 2011, petitioner filed her Reply to the Comment, addressing the issues raised therein. THE COURT’S RULING The Court finds the Petition to be without merit. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57529 4/8