Vital social institution

In all cases of annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage the court shall order the prosecution attorney or the fiscal assigned to it to appear in behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed (Article 48, Family Code (FC). This is the rule involved in this case between Ricky and Vicky.

Ricky and Vicky who both belong to the elites in our society got married on June 3, 1972 at a lavish wedding rites and reception. The first ten years of their marriage appeared to be normal. They lived together in their conjugal abode and begot two children. But after seven more years of living together or in 1989, the marriage apparently hit the rocks when Vicky filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Ricky after first obtaining a church annulment in 1986.

In her complaint, Vicky alleged that at the time of the marriage, Ricky was already psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations which became manifest afterward and resulted in violent fights, one of which caused physical injuries to her and impelled her to file a criminal complaint against Ricky; that Ricky also used prohibited drugs, was apprehended and sentenced to a one year suspended penalty; that Ricky is a womanizer and in 1984 left the conjugal home and cohabited with three women in succession; that after leaving the conjugal dwelling, he gave minimal support to the family and even refused to pay for the tuition fees of the children compelling her to accept donations and dole outs from family and friends; that Ricky mismanaged their conjugal properties and spent extravagantly incurring large obligations from banks and financial institutions. Finally, Vicky asserted that attempts at reconciliation were made but they all failed because of Ricky’s refusal to reform.

Ricky answered denying the imputations against him. He blamed Vicky for the breakdown of their marriage after ten years. He alleged that Vicky did not accord him the respect and dignity due him as a husband but treated him as a persona non-grata; that due to extreme animosities he left the conjugal home for a cooling off period; that it was Vicky who took drugs and had affairs with another man; that he was not a womanizer but his work in media exposed him to gossip linking him to various women; and that he was forced to dispose of some conjugal properties due to financial reverses in his business. Thus he petitioned the court to allow him to return to the conjugal home and continue administration of the conjugal properties.

At the trial which commenced on March 20, 1990, Vicky presented four witnesses including herself, their marriage counselor, a close friend and her own counsel to prove her allegations. She also presented documents including news articles about her husband’s relationship with other women, his apprehension by authorities for illegal possession of drugs and the copies of the church annulment.

Upon resting her case the court scheduled the reception of Ricky’s evidence. The first date set on May 11, 1990 was postponed upon his motion because his counsel was abroad. On the second date set by the court on June 8, 1990, he failed to appear thus prompting Vicky to move that he be declared to have waived his right to present evidence and that the case be deemed submitted for decision. On June 29, 1990, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the nullity of Vicky’s marriage to Ricky and awarding custody of the children to Vicky.

Counsel for Ricky received a copy of the decision on August 24, 1990. No appeal was taken from the decision so it became final and executory. When Vicky was trying to execute the decision on October 17, 1990, Ricky opposed it and filed a petition for relief from judgment before the RTC, but the RTC denied it. Ricky appealed the order of denial to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the RTC.

Ricky questioned this CA ruling before the Supreme Court contending among others that when he failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, the trial court should have ordered the prosecuting officer to intervene for the State and inquire as to the reason for his non-appearance to prevent collusion between the parties pursuant to Article 48 of the FC. Was Ricky correct?

No. The facts in the case at bar do not call for the application of Article 48 of the FC. For one, Ricky was not declared in default for failure to answer. Ricky filed his answer to the complaint and contested the cause of action alleged by Vicky. He actively participated in the proceedings and cross-examined Vicky’s witnesses. It is crystal clear that every stage of the litigation was characterized by a no-holds barred contest and not by collusion. Under the circumstances, the non-intervention by a prosecuting attorney to assure lack of collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in the trial court.

Collusion should be prevented in the grant of annulment or legal separation because 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 weaken our social and moral fabric and hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members (Tuason vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA, 158).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: to:[email protected]