When the Family Code took effect in 1988 and a few years thereafter, filing for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage with the court only entailed alleging the addresses of both petitioner and respondent on the petition. This was to determine the proper venue. The case must be filed at the place where either petitioner or respondent was residing at the election of petitioner. No proof of or attestation to residence was necessary.

Then came Administrative Matter (AM) 02-11-10-SC in March 2003. It mandated petitioner to file the action with the court of the place where she (or he) is a resident for at least six months (prior to institution). Apparently, the Supreme Court (SC) made this requirement to thwart indiscriminate filing of petitions anywhere. It seemed some parties filed their petition wherever convenient; even if not actual residents of the place where the court sat.

In actions I filed back then, I would already attach a barangay certification to show petitioner was compliant with the requirement. I remember even if some courts would not require me to prove petitioner’s residence, I made sure to painstakingly do so to avoid technicality. I always had that “what if” question on my mind that the other party or even the State, through the Office of the Solicitor-General, would question that on appeal.

Lo and behold, after many years since 2003, the SC on 2 October 2018, imposed submission of this barangay certification. (Guidelines to Validate Compliance with the Jurisdictional Requirement Set Forth in AM 02-11-10-SC). Said court orders additional requirements more than just merely alleging on the petition compliance with the six-month residency. “Petitioner shall state the complete address of the parties in the petition (i.e., house number, street, purok/village/subdivision, barangay, zone, town, city and province).”

So as to make sure that the address is existent and inhabited by the claimant, the SC now requires not merely a barangay certification, but one coupled with a house location sketch at that. In addition, petitioner’s counsel must separately execute a sworn statement that he has verified petitioner’s residence and that she has been a resident at least six months before filing. And notwithstanding the barangay and counsel’s attestation, petitioner must show proof of residence by submitting documents like utility bills, government-issued ID with photograph and address, and if applicable, lease contract with receipts for rental payments. If not a lease agreement, petitioner’s TCT (transfer certificate of title) to the property where she claims to reside should be attached. Whatever document is submitted, it should establish six-month residency.

Failure to comply with this compulsory requisite will result in the petition being thrown out of court. The court is obligated to dismiss it in fact and not just require the party’s subsequent compliance. In fact, I know some courts having dismissed cases based on this. Yes, petitioner can always re-file. But that means reinventing the wheel, i.e., executing a new petition, paying non-refundable docket fees and filing again.

Now, if at any stage of the proceedings, the court discovers that the address alleged in the petition is false, the court also will dismiss the case outright. Besides that, the counsel can be held in contempt for attesting to such false address. And it is not only contempt awaiting both party and counsel but possible criminal liability as well for the false declaration.

So, in filing any petition for that matter, a party must be ever vigilant in reviewing what she (or he) files. It is not just a matter of leaving everything to counsel then signing the document. After it is drafted, the party should make sure that all statements on the petition are true, correct and based on personal knowledge. The SC guidelines discussed above clearly emphasize that point. Otherwise, instead of getting relief from court, both party and counsel earn the court’s ire and sanction. And for that, they only have themselves to blame.