Galedo, Abegail P.

193. TAN V. TAN

PETITIONER : SUSIE CHAN-TAN

RESPONDENT : HON. JUDGE BIDIN
DATE : February 25, 2010
PONENTE : Carpio, J.
TOPIC : No Motion to Dismiss Allowed

FACTS:

 Petitioner and respondents were married and had two sons.

 Petitioner filed a case for annulment of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code. The parties
submitted Compromise agreement. The trial court issued a partial judgment approving the
compromise agreement.
 Petitioner authorized Megaworld to offer Lot 12 to other buyers.
 Petitioner’s left the country bringing the children with her.
 Respondent filed an omnibus motion seeking main custody of the children. The trial court
awarded to respondent the custody of the children.
 Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that she was no longer interested in the suit.
 The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss and the decision become final and executory upon
the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period without any timely appeal having been filed by either
party.

ISSUE:

WON petitioners motion to dismiss of section 7 of the rule on declaration of absolute nullity of
Void marriages is correct.

HELD:

 Yes, the same is correct.

 Sec. 7 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages provides that “No motion
to dismiss the petition shall be allowed except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter or over the parties; provided, however, that any other ground that might warrant a
dismissal of the case may be raised as an affirmative defense in an answer.
 This is to allow the respondent to ventilate all possible defenses in an answer, instead of a mere
motion to dismiss, so that judgment may be made on the merits. In construing a statute, the
purpose or object of the law is an important factor to be considered.
 Section 7 of the Rule does not apply to a motion to dismiss filed by the party
who initiated the petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage
or the annulment of voidable marriage.
 Since petitioner is not the respondent in the petition for the annulment of the marriage, Section 7
of the Rule does not apply to the motion to dismiss filed by her. Section 7 of the Rule not being
applicable, petitioner's claim that it is unconstitutional for allegedly setting an obstacle to the
preservation of the family is without basis.