Persons Cases to Digest for

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


2/25


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


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


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


6/25

the marriage of respondents -orma uison$Melgar


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


8/25

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.


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.


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%.


11/25

same ode in regard to parents and their children. 'uch non$complied marital obligation


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


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


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


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

@


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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.



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


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

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tecson-maryjoie
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Persons Cases to Digest for

Documents