Ancheta Vs Ancheta Case Digest

Ancheta vs Ancheta Case
Digest
Case Doctrine:
Marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the
State is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than
on good, solid and happy families. The break-up of families weakens
our social and moral fabric; hence, their preservation is not the
concern of the family members alone.
In all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and

legal separation, the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear
on behalf of the State for the purpose of preventing any collusion
between the parties and to take care that their evidence is not
fabricated or suppressed. If the defendant-spouse fails to answer the
complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but instead,
should order the prosecuting attorney to determine if collusion exists
between the parties. The prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose
the
application for legal separation or annulment
through the
presentation of his own evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is

dubious and fabricated.
Facts:
Marietta and Rodolfo were married in 1959. They had 8
children. In 1992, Rodolfo left the conjugal home and abandoned

Marietta and their children. Two years after, Marietta filed a complaint
for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership and judicial separation
of property with a plea for support and support pendente lite. At that
time, Marietta lived in Las Pinas. The parties entered into a
compromise agreement wherein their property located in Carmona,
Cavite was adjudicated to Marietta and her children. The court
rendered judgment based on the compromise agreement. Conformably
thereto, Marietta and her children moved and began residence at the
said Carmona property.
In 1995, Rodolfo, wanting to marry again, filed a case for the

declaration of nullity of his marriage with the Marietta on the ground of
psychological incapacity. Although the Rodolfo knew that the Marietta
was already residing in Carmona, Cavite, he, nevertheless, alleged in
his petition that the Marietta was residing at No. 72 CRM Avenue
corner CRM Corazon, BF Homes, Almanza, Las Pias, Metro Manila.
The sheriff served the summons and a copy of the petition by
substituted service on the the parties son, Venancio Mariano B.
Ancheta III, at his residence in Bancal, Carmona, Cavite.
Marietta failed to file an answer and was declared in default. Rodolfo

was allowed adduce evidence ex-parte. On July 7, 1995, the trial court
issued an Order granting the petition and declaring the marriage of the
parties void ab initio. The clerk of court issued a Certificate of Finality
of the Order of the court on July 16, 1996.
On July 7, 2000, the Marietta filed a verified petition against the

Rodolfo with the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court,
as amended, for the annulment of the order of the RTC.
Marietta, alleged, among others, that the order of the trial court
nullifying her and the Rodolfos marriage was null and void for the
court a quos failure to order the public prosecutor to conduct an
investigation on whether there was collusion between the parties, and
to order the Solicitor General to appear for the State.
Held:
The records show that for the petitioners failure to file an
answer to the complaint, the trial court granted the motion of the
respondent herein to declare her in default. The public prosecutor
condoned the acts of the trial court when he interposed no objection to
the motion of the respondent. The trial court forthwith received the
evidence of the respondent ex-parte and rendered judgment against
the petitioner without a whimper of protest from the public prosecutor.
The actuations of the trial court and the public prosecutor are in
defiance of Article 48 of the Family Code, which reads:
Article 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity
of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent
collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not
fabricated or suppressed.
In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall
be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.
The trial court and the public prosecutor also ignored Rule 18, Section
6 of the 1985 Rules of Court (now Rule 9, Section 3[e] of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure) which provides:
Sec. 6. No defaults in actions for annulment of marriage or for legal
separation. If the defendant in an action for annulment of marriage
or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the
prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between
the parties exits, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State
in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated.
In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals, this Court laid down the
guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 48 of the Family
Code, one of which concerns the role of the prosecuting attorney or
fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State:
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and
the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision
shall
be
handed
down
unless
the
Solicitor
General
issues
certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating

therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may
be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting
attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15)
days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the
court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of
the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution
requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma
compliance. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires
not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of
an invalid one as well.
A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is

fraught with the danger of collusion. Hence, in all cases for annulment,
declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the State for the
purpose of preventing any collusion between the parties and to take
care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. If the
defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot
declare him or her in default but instead, should order the prosecuting
attorney to determine if collusion exists between the parties. The
prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the application for legal
separation or annulment through the presentation of his own evidence,
if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated.
Our constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family

as a basic social institution. Our family law is based on the policy that
marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the
State is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than
on good, solid and happy families. The break-up of families weakens
our social and moral fabric; hence, their preservation is not the
concern of the family members alone. Whether or not a marriage
should continue to exist or a family should stay together must not
depend on the whims and caprices of only one party, who claims that
the other suffers psychological imbalance, incapacitating such party to
fulfill
his
or
her
marital
duties
and
Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004).
obligations (Ancheta
vs.

Ancheta Vs Ancheta Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancheta Vs Ancheta Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancheta Vs Ancheta Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancheta vs Ancheta Case

In all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and

application for legal separation or annulment

presentation of his own evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is

Marietta and Rodolfo were married in 1959. They had 8

children. In 1992, Rodolfo left the conjugal home and abandoned

In 1995, Rodolfo, wanting to marry again, filed a case for the

Marietta failed to file an answer and was declared in default. Rodolfo

On July 7, 2000, the Marietta filed a verified petition against the

The records show that for the petitioners failure to file an

certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating

an invalid one as well.

A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is

Our constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family

Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004).

You might also like