In all cases of annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage, the court shall ensure that there is no collusion between the parties and that the evidence is not fabricated. For this purpose, it shall order the prosecutor or fiscal assigned to the case to appear in behalf of the State to take steps to prevent them (Article 48, Family Code (FC). This is the rule invoked in this case.
The case is about a high society couple Jerry and Becky who got married on June 3, 1972 at lavish wedding rites and reception. After seventeen years of marriage and begetting two children, their marriage hit the rocks. Becky 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 her complaint, Becky alleged Jerry’s psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations that surfaced only later. Specifically she alleged: that they had violent fights, one of which caused physical injuries to her and impelled her to file a criminal complaint against him; that Jerry also used prohibited drugs for which he was sentenced to a one year suspended penalty; that Jerry is a womanizer and in fact left the conjugal home to cohabit 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 of the children compelling her to accept donations and dole outs from family and friends; that he mismanaged their conjugal properties and spent extravagantly incurring large obligations from banks and financial institutions. Becky also asserted that attempts at reconciliation were made but the all failed because of Jerry’s refusal to reform.
Jerry answered denying the imputations against him. He blamed Becky for the break-down of their marriage and alleged that she 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 Becky who took drugs and had an affair 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, 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 arrest by authorities for illegal possession of drugs and the copy of the church annulment.
Upon resting her case the court scheduled the reception of Jerry’s evidence. But it was postponed twice for non-appearance of Jerry and/or his counsel. Thus Becky moved that Jerry be declared to have waived his right to present evidence and that the case be deemed submitted for decision. The RTC granted the motion and rendered a decision declaring the nullity of Becky’s marriage to Jerry and awarding custody of the children to her.
Counsel for Jerry received a copy of the decision but no appeal was taken so it became final and executory. But when Becky tried to execute the decision, Jerry opposed it and filed a petition for relief from judgment before the RTC. The RTC however denied it which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
Jerry questioned the 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 Jerry correct?
No. The facts of this case do not call for the application of Article 48 of the FC. For one, Jerry was not declared in default for failure to answer. He even contested Becky’s allegations and actively participated in the proceedings and cross-examined Becky’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 between the parties should be prevented to strengthen 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 and hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members (Tuason vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA, 158).
Books containing compilation of articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law, Vols. I and II now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium 226, Ortigas Ave. Greenhills, Tel.7249445.
E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com