ISSUE WON the Pasig RTC acquired jurisdiction over the custody issue RULING YES

Issue won the pasig rtc acquired jurisdiction over

This preview shows page 34 - 35 out of 51 pages.

ISSUE: WON the Pasig RTC acquired jurisdiction over the custody issue??? RULING: YES. Art. 49. During the pendency of the action [for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage] and in the absence of adequate provisions in a written agreement between the spouses, the Court shall provide for the support of the spouses and the custody and support of their common children. x x x It shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 17 Art. 50. x x x x The final judgment in such cases [for the annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage] shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such other matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. " (Emphasis and underscoring added) By Eric’s filing of the case for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC he automatically submitted the issue of the custody of Bianca as an incident thereof. After the CA subsequently dismissed the habeas corpus case, there was no need for Eric to replead his prayer for custody for, as above-quoted provisions of the Family Code provide, the custody issue in a declaration of nullity case is deemed pleaded. Legal separation: Procedure ENRICO L. PACETE, CLARITA DE LA CONCEPCION, EMELDA C. PACETE, EVELINA C. PACETE and EDUARDO C. PACETE vs. HON. GLICERIO V. CARRIAGA, JR. and CONCEPCION (CONCHITA) ALANIS PACETE Facts: Concepcion Alanis filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between her husband Enrico Pacete and one Clarita de la Concepcion, as well as for legal separation (between Alanis and Pacete), accounting and separation of property. In her complaint, she averred that she was married to Pacete in 1938 in Cotabato. In 1948, Pacete contracted a second marriage with Clarita de la Concepcion in Kidapawan, North Cotabato which Alanis only learned of in 1979. During Alanis’ marriage to Pacete, the latter acquired vast property consisting of large tracts of land, fishponds and several motor vehicles and placed the several pieces of property either in his name and Clarita or in the names of his children with Clarita and other dummies. The defendants were each served with summons on November 15, 1979. They filed a motion for an extension of 20 days within which to file an answer. The court granted the motion. The defendants filed a second motion for an extension of another 30 days which was granted but reduced to 20 days . The Order of the court (reducing the extension) was mailed to defendants' counsel but it appears that the defendants were unaware of this so they again filed another motion for an extension of “15 days counted from the expiration of the 30-day period previously sought" within which to file an answer. The following day, the court denied this last motion on the ground that it was filed after the 20-day extension had expired. The
Image of page 34
Image of page 35

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture