persons cases to digest for
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
1/25
[G.R. No. 138509. July 31, 2000]
IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner, vs. ISAGANI D.
BOBIS, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
NARES-SAN!IAGO, J ."
On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria
Dulce B. a!ier. "ithout said marriage ha!ing been annulled, nullified or
terminated, the same respondent contracted a second marriage with petitioner
#melda Marbella$Bobis on anuar% 25, 199& and allegedl% a third marriage
with a certain ulia 'all% (ernande). Based on petitioners complaint$affida!it,
an information for bigam% was filed against respondent on *ebruar% 25, 1998,
which was doc+eted as riminal ase -o. 98$/5&11 of the 0egional rial
ourt, Branch 22&, ue)on it%. 'ometime thereafter, respondent initiated a
ci!il action for the udicial declaration of absolute nullit% of his first marriage on
the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license. 0espondent then
filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for bigam%
in!o+ing the pending ci!il case for nullit% of the first marriage as a preudicial
3uestion to the criminal case. he trial udge granted the motion to suspend
the criminal case in an Order dated December 29, 1998.41
6etitioner filed amotion for reconsideration, but the same was denied.
(ence, this petition for re!iew on certiorari . 6etitioner argues that respondent
should ha!e first obtained a udicial declaration of nullit% of his first marriage
before entering into the second marriage, inasmuch as the alleged preudicial
3uestion ustif%ing suspension of the bigam% case is no longer a legal truism
pursuant to 7rticle of the *amil% ode.42
he issue to be resol!ed in this petition is whether the subse3uent filing of aci!il action for declaration of nullit% of a pre!ious marriage constitutes a
preudicial 3uestion to a criminal case for bigam%.
7 preudicial 3uestion is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a
logical antecedent of the issue in!ol!ed therein.4: #t is a 3uestion based on a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn1
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
2/25
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
3/25
#n the case at bar, respondents clear intent is to obtain a udicial declaration of
nullit% of his first marriage and thereafter to in!o+e that !er% same udgment to
pre!ent his prosecution for bigam%. (e cannot ha!e his ca+e and eat it too.
Otherwise, all that an ad!enturous bigamist has to do is to disregard 7rticle
of the *amil% ode, contract a subse3uent marriage and escape a bigam%charge b% simpl% claiming that the first marriage is !oid and that the
subse3uent marriage is e3uall% !oid for lac+ of a prior udicial declaration of
nullit% of the first. 7 part% ma% e!en enter into a marriage aware of the
absence of a re3uisite $ usuall% the marriage license $ and thereafter contract
a subse3uent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullit% of the first on
the assumption that the first marriage is !oid. 'uch scenario would render
nugator% the pro!isions on bigam%. 7s succinctl% held in Landicho v. Relova;41
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
4/25
ode re3uires a @final udgment,@ which onl% the courts can render. hus, as
ruled in Landicho v. Relova,41 he who contracts a second marriage before the
udicial declaration of nullit% of the first marriage assumes the ris+ of being
prosecuted for bigam%, and in such a case the criminal case ma% not be
suspended on the ground of the pendenc% of a ci!il case for declaration ofnullit%. #n a recent case for concubinage, we held that the pendenc% of a ci!il
case for declaration of nullit% of marriage is not a preudicial 3uestion.415 his
ruling applies here b% analog% since both crimes presuppose the subsistence
of a marriage.
#gnorance of the e?istence of 7rticle of the *amil% ode cannot e!en be
successfull% in!o+ed as an e?cuse.41& he contracting of a marriage +nowing
that the re3uirements of the law ha!e not been complied with or that the
marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is an act penali)ed b% the0e!ised 6enal ode.41/ he legalit% of a marriage is a matter of law and e!er%
person is presumed to +now the law. 7s respondent did not obtain the udicial
declaration of nullit% when he entered into the second marriage, wh% should
he be allowed to belatedl% obtain that udicial declaration in order to dela% his
criminal prosecution and subse3uentl% defeat it b% his own disobedience of
the lawA #f he wants to raise the nullit% of the pre!ious marriage, he can do it
as a matter of defense when he presents his e!idence during the trial proper
in the criminal case.
he burden of proof to show the dissolution of the first marriage before the
second marriage was contracted rests upon the defense,418 but that is a matter
that can be raised in the trial of the bigam% case. #n the meantime, it should be
stressed that not e!er% defense raised in the ci!il action ma% be used as a
preudicial 3uestion to obtain the suspension of the criminal action. he lower
court, therefore, erred in suspending the criminal case for bigam%. Moreo!er,
when respondent was indicted for bigam%, the fact that he entered into two
marriage ceremonies appeared indubitable. #t was onl% after he was sued b%petitioner for bigam% that he thought of see+ing a udicial declaration of nullit%
of his first marriage. he ob!ious intent, therefore, is that respondent merel%
resorted to the ci!il action as a potential preudicial 3uestion for the purpose of
frustrating or dela%ing his criminal prosecution. 7s has been discussed abo!e,
this cannot be done.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/138509.htm#_ftn18
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
5/25
#n the light of 7rticle of the *amil% ode, respondent, without first ha!ing
obtained the udicial declaration of nullit% of the first marriage, can not be said
to ha!e !alidl% entered into the second marriage. 6er current urisprudence, a
marriage though !oid still needs a udicial declaration of such fact before an%
part% can marr% again> otherwise the second marriage will also be !oid.419
hereason is that, without a udicial declaration of its nullit%, the first marriage is
presumed to be subsisting. #n the case at bar, respondent was for all legal
intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted his
second marriage with petitioner .42 7gainst this legal bac+drop, an% decision in
the ci!il action for nullit% would not erase the fact that respondent entered into
a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. hus, a decision
in the ci!il case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. #t
is, therefore, not a preudicial 3uestion. 7s stated abo!e, respondent cannot
be permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against
him.421
#$ERE%ORE, the petition is 07-CD. he order dated December 29,
1998 of the 0egional rial ourt, Branch 22& of ue)on it% is
0CC0'CD and 'C 7'#DC and the trial court is ordered to
#MMCD#7CEF proceed with riminal ase -o. 98$/5&11.
0epublic of the 6hilippines
S&'REME CO&R!Manila
*#0' D##'#O-
G.R. No. 139()( M*+ 31, 200(
RE'&BLIC O% !$E '$ILI''INES, 6etitioner,
!s.
NORMA C&ISON-MELGAR, 0espondents.
D C # ' # O -
A&S!RIA-MAR!INE, J.:
*iled b% the 0epublic of the 6hilippines
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
6/25
the marriage of respondents -orma uison$Melgar
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
7/25
he Eocal i!il 0egistrar of Dagupan it% is therefore ordered to cancel the Marriage ontract of the
parties bearing 0egistr% -o. 18 in the Marriage 0egistr% of said Office after pa%ment of the re3uired
fees.
Eet a cop% of this decision be furnished the following offices; he it% 6rosecution Office, Dagupan
it%, the 'olicitor eneral, and the Eocal i!il 0egistrar of Dagupan it%.
'O O0DC0CD.12
he 0 reasoned that;
"ith the testimon% of the petitioner, the ourt is con!inced that defendant has been incorrigible in
his !ices such as habitual alcoholism, subecting his famil% to ph%sical maltreatment and man% times
caused them to be scandali)ed, his being indolent b% not at least tr%ing to loo+ for a ob so that he
could also help his wife in supporting his famil%, and also his uncalled for displa% of his ealous%.
hese are clear manifestation of his ps%chological incapacit% to perform his marital obligation to his
wife such as showing respect, understanding and lo!e to her. Defendant also became indifferent tothe needs of his own children who reall% longed for a father who is willing to ma+e the sacrifice in
loo+ing for a ob so as to support them. "ithout an% communication to his famil% since 1985,
certaining 4sic reconciliation and lo!e would be improbable. he attendant circumstances in this
case reall% point to the fact that defendant was unprepared to compl% with his responsibilities as a
good and responsible husband to his wife and a lo!ing father to his children ? ? ?.1:
6etitioner, represented b% the Office of the 'olicitor eneral
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
8/25
husband and a father all of which inabilities in the first place are in no wa% attributable to the herein
plaintiff.1&
(ence, the present petition for re!iew on certiorari.
#n its 6etition,
1/
the O' poses a sole issue for resolution;
"(C(C0 O0 -O (C 7EECCD 6'F(OEO#7E #-767#F O* 0C'6O-DC- #' #-
(C -7H0C O-CM6E7CD BF 70#EC :& O* (C *7M#EF ODC.18
he O' contends that the law does not contemplate mere inabilit% to perform the essential marital
obligations as e3ui!alent to or e!idence of ps%chological incapacit% under 7rticle :& of the *amil%
ode> that such inabilit% must be due to causes that are ps%chological in nature> that no ps%chiatrist
or ps%chologist testified during the trial that a ps%chological disorder is the cause of CulogioIs
inabilit% to loo+ for a ob, his resulting drun+enness, unbearable ealous% and other disagreeable
beha!ior> and that the decision failed to state the nature, gra!it% or seriousness, and incurabilit% of
CulogioGs alleged ps%chological incapacit%.
#n her omment,19 -orma maintains that her testimon% pointing to the facts and circumstances of
CulogioGs immaturit%, habitual alcoholism, unbearable ealous%, maltreatment, constitutional la)iness
and indolence are more than enough proof of CulogioGs ps%chological incapacit% to compl% with his
essential marital obligations, which ustifies the dissolution of their marriage.
#n its 0epl%,2 the O' submits that -ormaGs comments are irrele!ant and not responsi!e to the
arguments in the petition. -onetheless, the O' reiterates that -ormaGs e!idence fell short of the
re3uirements of the law since no competent e!idence was presented during the trial to pro!e that
CulogioGs inabilit% to loo+ for a ob, his resulting drun+enness, ealous% and other disagreeable
beha!ior are manifestations of ps%chological incapacit% under 7rticle :& of the *amil% ode.
6refatoril%, it bears stressing that it is the polic% of our onstitution to protect and strengthen the
famil% as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the famil%.21 Our
famil% law is based on the polic% that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which
the state is !itall% interested. he 'tate can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happ%
families. he brea+ up of families wea+ens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preser!ation
is not the concern alone of the famil% members.22
#n this regard, 7rticle 8 of the *amil% ode mandates;
70. 8. #n all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullit% of marriage, the ourt shall order the prosecuting attorne% or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the 'tate to ta+e steps to
pre!ent collusion between the parties and to ta+e care that the e!idence is not fabricated or
suppressed.
#n the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no udgment shall be based upon a stipulation of
facts or confession of udgment.
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
9/25
'imilarl%, 'ection & of 0ule 18 of the 1985 0ules of ourt,2: the rule then applicable, pro!ides;
'ec. &. -o defaults in actions for annulment of marriage or for legal separation. $ #f the defendant in
an action for annulment of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the
prosecuting attorne% to in!estigate whether or not a collusion between the parties e?ists, and if there
is no collusion, to inter!ene for the 'tate in order to see to it that the e!idence submitted is notfabricated.
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
10/25
dissolution and nullit%. his is rooted in the fact that both our onstitution and our laws
cherish the !alidit% of marriage and unit% of the famil%. hus, our onstitution de!otes an
entire 7rticle on the *amil%, recogni)ing it @as the foundation of the nation.@ #t decrees
marriage as legall% @in!iolable,@ thereb% protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the
parties. Both the famil% and marriage are to be @protected@ b% the state.
he *amil% ode echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the famil% and
emphasi)es their permanence, in!iolabilit% and solidarit%.
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
11/25
same ode in regard to parents and their children. 'uch non$complied marital obligation
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
12/25
be no conclusion of ps%chological incapacit% where there is absolutel% no showing that the @defects@
were alread% present at the inception of the marriage or that the% are incurable.8
he ourt commiserates with -ormaGs marital predicament, but as a court, e!en as the highest one,
it can onl% appl% the letter and the spirit of the law> it cannot rein!ent or modif% it. Hnfortunatel%, law
and urisprudence are ranged against -ormaGs stance. he ourt has no choice but to appl% themaccordingl%, if it must be true to its mission under the rule of law. he ourtGs first and foremost dut%
is to appl% the law no matter how harsh it ma% be.
"(C0C*O0C, the present petition is GRAN!ED. he assailed Decision of the ourt of 7ppeals
dated 7ugust 11, 1999 in 7$.0. -o. 555:8, affirming the Decision of the 0egional rial ourt,
Branch :, Dagupan it% in i!il ase -o. $9&$1&1$D, dated anuar% 2, 199/,
is RE/ERSED and SE! ASIDE. he complaint of -orma uison$Melgar in i!il ase -o. $9&$
1&1$D is DISMISSED.
(#0D D##'#O-
[G.R. No. 13((). A+l (, 2000]
AN!ONIA ARMAS CALIS!ERIO, petitioner, vs. MARIE!!A
CALIS!ERIO, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
/I!&G, J ."
On 2 7pril 1992, eodorico alisterio died intestate, lea!ing se!eral parcels
of land with an estimated !alue of 6&,/5.. eodorico was sur!i!ed b% his
wife, herein respondent Marietta alisterio. Csm
eodorico was the second husband of Marietta who had pre!iousl% been
married to ames "illiam Bounds on 1: anuar% 19& at aloocan it%.
ames Bounds disappeared without a trace on 11 *ebruar% 19/. eodorico
and Marietta were married ele!en %ears later, or on 8 Ma% 1958, without
Marietta ha!ing priorl% secured a court declaration that ames waspresumpti!el% dead. Csmsc
On 9 October 1992, herein petitioner 7ntonia 7rmas % alisterio, a sur!i!ing
sister of eodorico, filed with the 0egional rial ourt
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
13/25
claiming to be inter alia, the sole sur!i!ing heir of eodorico alisterio, the
marriage between the latter and respondent Marietta Cspinosa alisterio
being allegedl% bigamous and thereb% null and !oid. 'he pra%ed that her son
'infroniano . 7rmas, r., be appointed administrator, without bond, of the
estate of the deceased and that the inheritance be adudicated to her after allthe obligations of the estate would ha!e been settled.
0espondent Marietta opposed the petition. Marietta stated that her first
marriage with ames Bounds had been dissol!ed due to the latterIs absence,
his whereabouts being un+nown, for more than ele!en %ears before she
contracted her second marriage with eodorico. ontending to be the
sur!i!ing spouse of eodorico, she sought priorit% in the administration of the
estate of the decedent. Csmmis
On 5 *ebruar% 199:, the trial court issued an order appointing ointl%
'infroniano . 7rmas, r., and respondent Marietta administrator and
administratri?, respecti!el%, of the intestate estate of eodorico.
On 1/ anuar% 199&, the lower court handed down its decision in fa!or of
petitioner 7ntonia> it adudged;
@"(C0C*O0C, udgment is hereb% rendered finding for the
petitioner and against the oppositor whereb% herein petitioner, 7ntonia 7rmas % alisterio, is declared as the sole heir of the
estate of eodorico alisterio % acabelos.@ 41
0espondent Marietta appealed the decision of the trial court to the ourt of
7ppeals, formulating that$
@1. he trial court erred in appl%ing the pro!isions of the *amil%
ode in the instant case despite the fact that the contro!ers%
arose when the -ew i!il ode was the law in force.
@2. he trial court erred in holding that the marriage between
oppositor$appellant and the deceased eodorico alisterio is
bigamous for failure of the former to secure a decree of the
presumpti!e death of her first spouse.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/136467.html#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/136467.html#_ftn1
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
14/25
@:. he trial court erred in not holding that the propert% situated at
-o. :2 Batangas 'treet, 'an *rancisco del Monte, ue)on it%, is
the conugal propert% of the oppositor$appellant and the deceased
eodorico alisterio. Csmso
@. he trial court erred in holding that oppositor$appellant is not a
legal heir of deceased eodorico alisterio.
@5. he trial court erred in not holding that letters of administration
should be granted solel% in fa!or of oppositor$appellant.@42
On :1 7ugust 1998, the appellate court, through Mr. ustice onrado M.
as3ue), r., promulgated its now assailed decision, thus;
@#- #C" O* 7EE (C *O0CO#-, the Decision appealed from
is 0CC0'CD 7-D 'C 7'#DC, and a new one entered
declaring as follows;
@
@
@ Msesm
@ otherwise, to determine who among the deceasedIs ne?t of
+in is competent and willing to become the administrator of the
estate.@4:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/136467.html#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/136467.html#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/136467.html#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/136467.html#_ftn3
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
15/25
On 2: -o!ember 1998, the ourt of 7ppeals denied petitionerIs motion for
reconsideration, prompting her to interpose the present appeal. 6etitioner
asse!erates;
@#t is respectfull% submitted that the decision of the ourt of 7ppeals re!ersing and setting aside the decision of the trial court
is not in accord with the law or with the applicable decisions of this
(onorable ourt.@4
#t is e!ident that the basic issue focuses on the !alidit% of the marriage
between the deceased eodorico and respondent Marietta, that, in turn, would
be determinati!e of her right as a sur!i!ing spouse. C?sm
he marriage between the deceased eodorico and respondent Marietta wassolemni)ed on 8 Ma% 1958. he law in force at that time was the i!il ode,
not the *amil% ode which too+ effect onl% on : 7ugust 1988. 7rticle 25& of
the *amil% ode45 itself limited its retroacti!e go!ernance onl% to cases where
it thereb% would not preudice or impair !ested or ac3uired rights in
accordance with the i!il ode or other laws.
eril%, the applicable specific pro!ision in the instant contro!ers% is 7rticle 8:
of the -ew i!il ode which pro!ides; L%le
@7rt. 8:. 7n% marriage subse3uentl% contracted b% an% person
during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with an%
person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and !oid from
its performance, unless;
@ or
@
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
16/25
articles :9 and :91. he marriage so contracted shall be !alid in
an% of the three cases until declared null and !oid b% a competent
court.@
Hnder the foregoing pro!isions, a subse3uent marriage contracted during thelifetime of the first spouse is illegal and !oid ab initio unless the prior marriage
is first annulled or dissol!ed. 6aragraph
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
17/25
more than ele!en %ears before she entered into a second marriage in 1958
with the deceased eodorico alisterio. his second marriage, ha!ing been
contracted during the regime of the i!il ode, should thus be deemed !alid
notwithstanding the absence of a udicial declaration of presumpti!e death of
ames Bounds.
he conugal propert% of eodorico and Marietta, no e!idence ha!ing been
adduced to indicate another propert% regime between the spouses, pertains to
them in common. Hpon its dissolution with the death of eodorico, the
propert% should rightl% be di!ided in two e3ual portions $$ one portion going to
the sur!i!ing spouse and the other portion to the estate of the deceased
spouse. he successional right in intestac% of a sur!i!ing spouse o!er the net
estate411 of the deceased, concurring with legitimate brothers and sisters or
nephews and nieces alone, upon the other
hand, nephews and nieces can succeed in their own right which is to sa% that
brothers or sisters e?clude nephews and nieces e?cept onl% in representation
b% the latter of their parents who predecease or are incapacitated to succeed.
he appellate court has thus erred in granting, in paragraph
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
18/25
Salonga, (ernande# % Allado for pri!ate respondent.
D E C I S I O N
'&NO, J ."
his petition for re!iew on certiorari see+s to annul and set aside the
decision dated ul% 29, 199 of the ourt of 7ppeals in 7$.0. -o.
:/925 den%ing petitioners appeal from an order of the 0egional rial ourt,
Branch 19, Ma+ati in i!il ase -o. :/&9.
his case arose from the following facts;
#n 1989, pri!ate respondent Maria ictoria Eope) uason filed with the
0egional rial ourt, Branch 19, Ma+ati a petition for annulment or declaration of nullit% of her marriage to petitioner Cmilio 0. uason. #n her
complaint, pri!ate respondent alleged that she and petitioner were married on
une :, 19/2 and from this union, begot two children> that at the time of the
marriage, petitioner was alread% ps%chologicall% incapacitated to compl% with
his essential marital obligations which became manifest afterward and
resulted in !iolent fights between husband and wife> that in one of their fights,
petitioner inflicted ph%sical inuries on pri!ate respondent which impelled her
to file a criminal case for ph%sical inuries against him> that petitioner used
prohibited drugs, was apprehended b% the authorities and sentenced to a one$
%ear suspended penalt% and has not been rehabilitated> that petitioner was a
womani)er, and in 198, he left the conugal home and cohabited with three
women in succession, one of whom he presented to the public as his wife>
that after he left the conugal dwelling, petitioner ga!e minimal support to the
famil% and e!en refused to pa% for the tuition fees of their children compelling
pri!ate respondent to accept donations and dole$outs from her famil% and
friends> that petitioner li+ewise became a spendthrift and abused his
administration of the conugal partnership b% alienating some of their assetsand incurring large obligations with ban+s, credit card companies and other
financial institutions, without pri!ate respondents consent> that attempts at
reconciliation were made but the% all failed because of petitioners refusal to
reform. #n addition to her pra%er for annulment of marriage, pri!ate respondent
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
19/25
pra%ed for powers of administration to sa!e the conugal properties from
further dissipation.41
6etitioner answered den%ing the imputations against him. 7s affirmati!e
defense, he claimed that he and pri!ate respondent were a normal marriedcouple during the first ten %ears of their marriage and actuall% begot two
children during this period> that it was onl% in 1982 that the% began to ha!e
serious personal differences when his wife did not accord the respect and
dignit% due him as a husband but treated him li+e a persona non grata) that
due to the e?treme animosities between them, he temporaril% left the conugal
home for a cooling$off period in 198> that it is pri!ate respondent who had
been ta+ing prohibited drugs and had a serious affair with another man> that
petitioners wor+ as owner and operator of a radio and tele!ision station
e?posed him to malicious gossip lin+ing him to !arious women in media andthe entertainment world> and that since 198, he e?perienced financial
re!erses in his business and was compelled, with the +nowledge of his wife,
to dispose of some of the conugal shares in e?clusi!e golf and countr%
clubs. 6etitioner petitioned the court to allow him to return to the conugal
home and continue his administration of the conugal partnership.
7fter the issues were oined, trial commenced on March :, 199. 6ri!ate
respondent presented four witnesses, namel%, herself> Dr. 'amuel "ile%, a
anon Eaw e?pert and marriage counselor of both pri!ate respondent and
petitioner> Ms. 7delita 6rieto, a close friend of the spouses, and 7n%. ose *.
0acela #, pri!ate respondents counsel. 6ri!ate respondent li+ewise submitted
documentar% e!idence consisting of newspaper articles of her husbands
relationship with other women, his apprehension b% the authorities for illegal
possession of drugs> and copies of a prior church annulment decree. 42 he
parties marriage was clericall% annulled b% the ribunal Metropolitanum
Matrimoniale which was affirmed b% the -ational 7ppellate Matrimonial
ribunal in 198&.4:
During presentation of pri!ate respondents e!idence, petitioner, on 7pril
18, 199, filed his Opposition to pri!ate respondents petition for appointment
as administratri? of the conugal partnership of gains.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn3
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
20/25
7fter pri!ate respondent rested her case, the trial court scheduled the
reception of petitioners e!idence on Ma% 11, 199.
On Ma% 8, 199, two da%s before the scheduled hearing, a counsel for
petitioner mo!ed for a postponement on the ground that the principal counselwas out of the countr% and due to return on the first wee+ of une. 4 he court
granted the motion and reset the hearing to une 8, 199. 45
On une 8, 199, petitioner failed to appear. On oral motion of pri!ate
respondent, the court declared petitioner to ha!e wai!ed his right to present
e!idence and deemed the case submitted for decision on the basis of the
e!idence presented.
On une 29, 199, the trial court rendered udgment declaring the nullit% of pri!ate respondents marriage to petitioner and awarding custod% of the
children to pri!ate respondent. he court ruled;
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the marriage contracted by Ma. Victoria L.
Tuaon and Emi!io R. Tuaon on "une #, $%&' i dec!ared nu!! and void oh initio on
the ground of (ycho!ogica! inca(acity on the (art of the defendant under )ec. #* of
the Fami!y +ode. Let herein udgment of annu!ment be recorded in the regitry of
Manda!uyong, Metro Mani!a where the marriage wa contracted and in the regitry of
Ma-ati, Metro Mani!a where the marriage i annu!!ed.
he custod% of the two
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
21/25
7lso on the same da%, October 1/, 199, petitioner, through new counsel,
filed with the trial court a petition for relief from udgment of the une 29, 199
decision.
he trial court denied the petition on 7ugust 8, 1991.49
6etitioner appealed before the ourt of 7ppeals the order of the trial court
den%ing his petition for relief from udgment. On ul% 29, 199, the ourt of
7ppeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the trial court.41
(ence this petition.
he threshold issue is whether a petition for relief from udgment is
warranted under the circumstances of the case.
"e rule in the negati!e.
7 petition for relief from udgment is go!erned b% 0ule :8, 'ection 2 of the
0e!ised 0ules of ourt which pro!ides;
)ection '. etition to +ourt of Firt /ntance for re!ief from udgment or other
(roceeding thereof. 0 When a udgment or order i entered, or any other (roceeding i
ta-en, againt a (arty in a court of firt intance through fraud, accident, mita-e, or
e1cuab!e neg!igence, he may fi!e a (etition in uch court and in the ame caue
(raying that the udgment, order or (roceeding be et aide.
Hnder the rules, a final and e?ecutor% udgment or order of the 0egional
rial ourt ma% be set aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mista+e or
e?cusable negligence. #n addition, the petitioner must assert facts showing
that he has a good, substantial and meritorious defense or cause of action. 411 #f
the petition is granted, the court shall proceed to hear and determine the case
as if a timel% motion for new trial had been granted therein.412
#n the case at bar, the decision annulling petitioners marriage to pri!ate
respondent had alread% become final and e?ecutor% when petitioner failed to
appeal during the reglementar% period. 6etitioner howe!er claims that the
decision of the trial court was null and !oid for !iolation of his right to due
process. (e contends he was denied due process when, after failing to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn12
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
22/25
appear on two scheduled hearings, the trial court deemed him to ha!e wai!ed
his right to present e!idence and rendered udgment on the basis of the
e!idence for pri!ate respondent.6etitioner ustifies his absence at the hearings
on the ground that he was then confined for medical andJor rehabilitation
reasons.41:
#n his affida!it of merit before the trial court, he attached acertification b% Et. ol. 6laridel *. idal, Director of the -arcotics ommand,
Drug 0ehabilitation enter which states that on March 2/, 199 petitioner was
admitted for treatment of drug dependenc% at the Drug 0ehabilitation enter
at amp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, aguig, Metro Manila of the 6hilippine
onstabular%$#ntegrated -ational 6olice.41 he records, howe!er, show that
the former counsel of petitioner did not inform the trial court of this
confinement. 7nd when the court rendered its decision, the same counsel was
out of the countr% for which reason the decision became final and e?ecutor%
as no appeal was ta+en therefrom.415
he failure of petitioners counsel to notif% him on time of the ad!erse
udgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence which is not
e?cusable. -otice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client and the
neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an ad!erse udgment resulting in
the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a udgment !alid
and regular on its face.41&
'imilarl% ine?cusable was the failure of his former counsel to inform the
trial court of petitioners confinement and medical treatment as the reason for
his non$appearance at the scheduled hearings. 6etitioner has not gi!en an%
reason wh% his former counsel, intentionall% or unintentionall%, did not inform
the court of this fact. his led the trial court to order the case deemed
submitted for decision on the basis of the e!idence presented b% the pri!ate
respondent alone. o compound the negligence of petitioners counsel, the
order of the trial court was ne!er assailed !ia a motion for reconsideration.
learl%, petitioner cannot now claim that he was depri!ed of due
process. (e ma% ha!e lost his right to present e!idence but he was not denied
his da% in court. 7s the records show, petitioner, through counsel, acti!el%
participated in the proceedings below. (e filed his answer to the petition,
cross$e?amined pri!ate respondents witnesses and e!en submitted his
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn16
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
23/25
opposition to pri!ate respondents motion for dissolution of the conugal
partnership of gains.41/
7 petition for relief from udgment is an e3uitable remed%> it is allowed onl%
in e?ceptional cases where there is no other a!ailable or ade3uate remed%."hen a part% has another remed% a!ailable to him, which ma% be either a
motion for new trial or appeal from an ad!erse decision of the trial court, and
he was not pre!ented b% fraud, accident, mista+e or e?cusable negligence
from filing such motion or ta+ing such appeal, he cannot a!ail himself of this
petition.418 #ndeed, relief will not be granted to a part% who see+s a!oidance
from the effects of the udgment when the loss of the remed% at law was due
to his own negligence> otherwise the petition for relief can be used to re!i!e
the right to appeal which had been lost thru ine?cusable negligence.419
6etitioner also insists that he has a !alid and meritorious defense. (e cites
the *amil% ode which pro!ides that in actions for annulment of marriage or
legal separation, the prosecuting officer should inter!ene for the state
because the law loo+s with disfa!or upon the hapha)ard declaration of
annulment of marriages b% default. (e contends that when he failed to appear
at the scheduled hearings, the trial court should ha!e ordered the prosecuting
officer to inter!ene for the state and in3uire as to the reason for his non$
appearance.42
7rticles 8 and & of the *amil% ode read as follows;
2rt. 34. /n a!! cae of annu!ment or dec!aration of abo!ute nu!!ity of marriage, the
+ourt ha!! order the (roecution attorney or fica! aigned to it to a((ear on beha!f
of the )tate to ta-e te( to (revent co!!uion between the (artie and to ta-e care that
evidence i not fabricated or u((reed.
/n the cae referred to in the (receding (aragra(h, no udgment ha!! be baed u(on a
ti(u!ation of fact or confeion of udgment.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2rt. *5. 6o decree of !ega! e(aration ha!! be baed u(on a ti(u!ation of fact or a
confeion of udgment.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn20
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
24/25
#n an% case, the ourt shall order the prosecuting attorne% or fiscal
assigned to it to ta+e steps to pre!ent collusion between the parties and to
ta+e care that the e!idence is not fabricated or suppressed.421
7 grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation b% default is fraughtwith the danger of collusion.422 (ence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of
nullit% of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorne% or fiscal is
ordered to appear on behalf of the state for the purpose of pre!enting an%
collusion between the parties and to ta+e care that their e!idence is not
fabricated or suppressed. #f the defendant spouse fails to answer the
complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but instead, should
order the prosecuting attorne% to determine if collusion e?ists between the
parties.42: he prosecuting attorne% or fiscal ma% oppose the application for
legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his own e!idence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated. 42 Our onstitution
is committed to the polic% of strengthening the famil% as a basic social
institution.425 Our famil% law is based on the polic% that marriage is not a mere
contract, but a social institution in which the state is !itall% interested. he
state can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happ% families. he
brea+ up of families wea+ens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their
preser!ation is not the concern alone of the famil% members.
he facts in the case at bar do not call for the strict application of 7rticles
8 and & of the *amil% ode. *or one, petitioner was not declared in default
b% the trial court for failure to answer. 6etitioner filed his answer to the
complaint and contested the cause of action alleged b% pri!ate
respondent. (e acti!el% participated in the proceedings below b% filing se!eral
pleadings and cross$e?amining the witnesses of pri!ate respondent. #t is
cr%stal clear that e!er% stage of the litigation was characteri)ed b% a no$holds
barred contest and not b% collusion.
he role of the prosecuting attorne% or fiscal in annulment of marriage and
legal separation proceedings is to determine whether collusion e?ists between
the parties and to ta+e care that the e!idence is not suppressed or
fabricated. 6etitioners !ehement opposition to the annulment proceedings
negates the conclusion that collusion e?isted between the parties. here is no
allegation b% the petitioner that e!idence was suppressed or fabricated b% an%
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn25
-
8/17/2019 Persons Cases to Digest for
25/25
of the parties. Hnder these circumstances, we are con!inced that the non$
inter!ention of a prosecuting attorne% to assure lac+ of collusion between the
contending parties is not fatal to the !alidit% of the proceedings in the trial
court.
6etitioner also refutes the testimonies of pri!ate respondents witnesses,
particularl% Dr. 'amuel "ile% and Ms. 7delita 6rieto, as biased, incredible and
hearsa%. 6etitioner alleges that if he were able to present his e!idence, he
could ha!e testified that he was not ps%chologicall% incapacitated at the time
of the marriage as indicated b% the fact that during their first ten %ears, he and
pri!ate respondent li!ed together with their children as one normal and happ%
famil%, that he continued supporting his famil% e!en after he left the conugal
dwelling and that his wor+ as owner and operator of a radio and tele!ision
corporation places him in the public e%e and ma+es him a good subect for malicious gossip lin+ing him with !arious women. hese facts, according to
petitioner, should dispro!e the ground for annulment of his marriage to
petitioner.
'uffice it to state that the finding of the trial court as to the e?istence or
non$e?istence of petitioners ps%chological incapacit% at the time of the
marriage is final and binding on us. 42&6etitioner has not sufficientl% shown that
the trial courts factual findings and e!aluation of the testimonies of pri!ate
respondents witnesses vis*a*vis petitioners defenses are clearl% and
manifestl% erroneous.42/
IN /IE# #$EREO%, the petition is denied and the decision dated ul% 29,
199 of the ourt of 7ppeals in 7$.0. -o. :/925 is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/apr1996/116607.htm#_edn27