100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
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 custodyand support of their common children. x x x It shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)17Art. 50. x x x xThe final judgmentin such cases [for the annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage] shall provide forthe liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties ofthe spouses, the custodyand support of the common children,and the delivery oftheir presumptive legitimes, unless such other matters had been adjudicatedin 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: ProcedureENRICO L. PACETE, CLARITA DE LA CONCEPCION, EMELDA C. PACETE,EVELINA C. PACETE and EDUARDO C. PACETEvs. HON. GLICERIO V.CARRIAGA, JR. and CONCEPCION (CONCHITA) ALANIS PACETEFacts:Concepcion Alanis filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of themarriage between her husband Enrico Pacete and one Clarita de la Concepcion, aswell as for legal separation (between Alanis and Pacete), accounting and separationof property. In her complaint, she averred that she was married to Pacete in 1938 inCotabato. In 1948, Pacete contracted a second marriage with Clarita de laConcepcion in Kidapawan, North Cotabato which Alanis only learned of in 1979.During Alanis’ marriage to Pacete, the latter acquired vast property consisting of largetracts of land, fishponds and several motor vehicles and placed the several pieces ofproperty either in his name and Clarita or in the names of his children with Clarita andother 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. Thecourt granted the motion. The defendants filed a second motion for an extension ofanother 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 thedefendants were unaware of thisso they again filed another motion for anextension of “15 days counted from the expiration of the 30-day period previouslysought" within which to file an answer. The following day, the court denied this lastmotion on the ground that it was filed after the 20-day extensionhad expired. The