G.R. No. 263627 - RONALD B. BOADO, VS. FLORENCE C. GALVEZ-BOADO AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the marriage entered into between RONALD B. BOADO and FLORENCE C. GALVEZ-BOADO on May 22, 2002 in Quezon City, Metro Manila is hereby declared NULL and VOID ab initio pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended. Accordingly, the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, Metro Manila is ordered to make the proper entries into the records of the herein parties pursuant to the judgment to [sic] this Court. Further, let copies of this [D]ecision be furnished [to] the Office of the Solicitor General , the Provincial Prosecutor of Balaoan, La Union , the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, Metro Manila , the Local Civil Registrar of Balaoan, La Union and the Philippine Statistics Authority, (PSA), Manila , for their information/record. And for the execution/implementation of this Judgment. SO ORDERED . (Emphasis in the original) [42] Thereafter, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Motion for Reconsideration. It argued that it was deprived of its right to due process because it was not furnished copies of the relevant motions and pleadings, including the pre-trial brief and the formal offer of evidence. On the merits, it argued that the totality of evidence presented by Ronald failed to prove his psychological incapacity. [43] Ronald opposed the Motion, contending that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Balaoan, La Union, whom the Office of the Solicitor General deputized to appear for the Republic, was furnished all the relevant pleadings. Therefore, the Republic was not deprived of due process. On the merits, Ronald maintained that he proved his psychological incapacity. [44] The Regional Trial Court reversed its earlier judgment. It agreed with the Republic that the latter was deprived of due process. At the time Ronald testified in court, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Balaoan, La Union, had not yet been deputized to appear on behalf of the Republic. Furthermore, Ronald was allowed to testify before the service of summons on Florence. The trial court likewise held that Ronald failed to prove the gravity and incurability of his psychological incapacity. [45] The dispositive portion of the trial court's January 17, 2020 Resolution [46] reads: ACCORDINGLY, the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by the OSG is hereby GRANTED. The DECISION in the above-entitled case dated December 14, 2016 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The above-entitled Case is considered DENIED. [47] (Emphasis in the original) Ronald initially filed a Notice of Appeal, which he subsequently withdrew. Instead, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration with a Motion to Withdraw Appeal, reiterating that the Republic was not deprived of due process and that he sufficiently proved his psychological incapacity. [48] In its June 26, 2020 Order, the Regional Trial Court denied Ronald's Motion for Reconsideration, finding no reason to disturb its earlier ruling. [49] The Court of Appeals denied Ronald's