The sanctity of marriage

Shaila, a Filipino, and Chris, a Portuguese, got married after two years of courtship. However, after seven years of marriage, Shaila filed a complaint in court. According to her, Chris was “psychologically incapacitated” because he was unable to fulfill his obligations as a husband. Shaila requested the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to annul their marriage.

The case was heard for eight months without the participation of the Solicitor General, who acts as the government’s representative. Only the fiscal testified, confirming that there was no “collusion” or conspiracy between the spouses. The fiscal rarely appeared and the presiding judge did not request his participation in the proceedings.

As a result, the RTC did not annul the marriage between Shaila and Chris. The court dismissed the petition due to insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed this decision.

However, the RTC and CA were mistaken in doing so. The government has a duty to protect marriage as a sacred institution in society, and this requires the serious participation of government representatives in cases concerning the annulment of marriage.

In the case Republic vs. CA, 268SCRA 198, it was emphasized that the lower court must ensure the participation of both the fiscal and the Solicitor General as the government’s legal counsel. Any decision rendered without the Solicitor General’s certification – where he expresses either agreement or objection to the petition – would be invalid. The SolGen’s involvement is considered an integral part of the court’s final decision.

Therefore, Shaila’s petition must be heard again in the RTC. The proper participation of the Solicitor General is essential to safeguard the government’s interest in preserving the sanctity of marriage. (Sin vs. Sin, 355 SCRA 285.)