Chan-Tan vs Chan

25 February 2010
Ponente: Romero, J.
Topic: In general
Facts:
Chan-Tan and Tan were married in June 1989 at the Manila Cathedral. They were blessed with 2 sons
In 2001, the petitioner filed a case for annulment of the marriage under Art 36 of the family code. They
submitted to court a very specific compromise agreement regarding properties and joint custody of
the children which includes who gets the children on what days and who picks them up, etc. They
were both to continue love and affection (ie. school activities- common ground, etc), and no one is to
impede the other from doing so.
But then, respondent filed an omnibus motion seeking main custody of the children because Chan Tan
took them out of the country without his consent. He was awarded this.
Chan-Tan filed a motion for reconsideration alleging denial of due process because her counsel was
not able to inform her of such proceedings and that she had to take the children out of the country
because she feared for their lives at the hands of her former husband, Tan.
Trial court declared the marriage between parties void under Article 36 citing mutual psychological
incapacity. Trial court also denied Chan-Tans motion for reconsideration.
Art. 50. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also
apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles
40 and 45.The final judgment in such cases 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 third
presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.All creditors
of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the
proceedings for liquidation.In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be
adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.
Art. 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the
date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the
parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.The children or their
guardian or the trustee of their property may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.The delivery of the
presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the
children accruing upon the death of either of both of the parents; but the value of the properties already
received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime.
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the
properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the
appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons. (n)
Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the
immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void.chan robles virtual
law library
Art. 54. Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under
Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. Children conceived or born of the
subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.

Issues:
W/N the 3- March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution of the trial court have attained
finality despite alleged denial of due process
Decision: Petition has no merit. There was no denial of due process

Held
judgement was final and
executory

Ratio

once a judgement is final and executory, it should be laid

to rest

She was not denied due

process

she may have lost her chance to present evidence but she
had her day in court through her counsel who filed for a
nullity of proceedings and stating that she cannot be
contacted. The court finds that the negligence stems from
the petitioner.