TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , the instant Petition for Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. [29] On February 8, 2021, the Court of Appeals denied [30] Aileen's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Hence, petitioner Ma. Aileen D.
Accordingly, there was no grave abuse of discretion when the trial court denied Aileen's prayer for dismissal. [26] The Court of Appeals also found the allegations in Edwin's petition adequate "to make out a cause of action for the declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 35(3) of the Family Code[.]" [27] It explained that in determining whether the petition failed to state a cause of action, the court only needs to "focus on the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations." [28] The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision reads: In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proving that the court a quo committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Order denying the prayer in her Answer with Special Affirmative Defenses for the dismissal of the Petition below for non-compliance with Section 5 (4) of A.M. 02-11-10-SC and failure to state cause of action. Hence, petitioner's recourse to certiorari is unwarranted. WHEREFORE , the instant Petition for Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. [29] On February 8, 2021, the Court of Appeals denied [30] Aileen's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Hence, petitioner Ma. Aileen D. Moncayo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari [31] before this Court, raising the following arguments: First , respondent Edwin's Petition failed to state a cause of action and should have been dismissed by the trial court "for being insufficient in substance." [32] Petitioner argues that respondent's Petition, including the attached supporting documents, should be considered in its totality in determining if it sufficiently states a cause of action. Thus, she maintains that its totality proves that their marriage license exists. Petitioner also points that the solemnizing officers attested that the relevant marriage license was exhibited before them in their two marriage certificates. She insists that their names not appearing in the book of application for licenses does not mean the marriage license does not exist. [33] Second , petitioner argues that respondent's petition should have been dismissed outright for violating A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Pursuant to the mandatory nature of service of copies to the OSG and OCP, coupled with the Constitutional mandate to preserve marriage, petitioner maintains that the "sound judicial discretion is to dismiss the case for non-compliance thereof." This is despite the use of the word "may" in the provision. [34] Besides, according to petitioner, the three months delay in the service aggravates the violation. [35] Respondent filed a Comment to the Petition for Review on Certiorari . First , he points that petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements under Section 4(b) of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. [36] The Petition did not indicate the date when petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration [37] or attach a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified t