Emilio Tuason vs CA and Victoria Tuason

G.R. No. 116607

10 April 1996

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari

Ponente: Puno

Facts:

On June 1972, respondent Victoria Lopez Tuazon married petitioner Emilio Tuason. Due to the series of
physical abuse against the respondent, the petitioners use of prohibited drugs, cohabitating with three
women, leaving the conjugal home and giving minimal child support, abuse of conjugal property use and
incurring of bank debts without the respondents consent, respondent filed a petition for annulment or
declaration of nullity of their marriage in 1989 before RTC Makati on the ground of psychological
incapacity and prayed for powers of administration to save the conjugal properties from further
dissipation.

Petitioner filed his Opposition in April 1990 and was thereafter scheduled to present his evidence on 11
May 1990. Counsel for petitioner moved for a postponement to 8 June, however, petitioner failed to
appear. On 29 June 1990, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the nullity of marriage and awarding
the custody of common children to respondent. No appeal was taken.

Thereafter, on 24 September 1990, respondent filed Motion for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership of
Gains and Adjudication to Plaintiff of the Conjugal Properties which was opposed by petitioner on 17
October. On the same day, petitioner filed a petitioner from relief of judgment of the 19 June 1990
decision. The trial court denied the petition on 8 August 1991 which was affirmed by the CA on July
1994. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issues:
1. Whether a petitioner for relief from judgment is warranted because the decision of the Court is null and
void for violation of petitioners right to due process.

2. Whether in the absence of the petitioner in the hearing, the court should have ordered a prosecuting
officer to intervene under Art. 48 of the Family Code.

Ruling: Section 2 of Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: a final and executory judgment of
the RTC may be set aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence with
petitioner showing meritorious cause of action. In the case at bar, the decision of nullity had already
become final when petitioner through his counsel failed to appeal during the reglementary period despite
petitioner eventually justifying his absence due to medical reasons. Further, the failure of the counsel to
inform petitioner of adverse judgment to enable him to appeal is an inexcusable negligence and not a
ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face. Similarly inexcusable is the counsels
failure to notify the court of petitioners confinement. Petitioner cannot claim he was deprived of due
process by the Court.

Petitioner likewise insists he has a meritorious defense by citing the Family Code which provides that in
actions for annulment of marriage or legal separation, the prosecuting officer shall intervene for the state.
He contends that when he failed to appear at the hearing, the trial court should have ordered the
prosecuting officer to intervene for the state and inquire as to the reason for his nonappearance. Because
the Constitution is committed to the preservation and strengthening of the family as a basic social
institution, Art. 48 and 60 provides that a prosecuting officer shall intervene if a defendant spouse fails to
answer the complaint to prevent collision. It cannot be applied to the case at bar because the petitioner
actively participated in the proceedings by filing several pleadings and cross-examination of the
witnesses.

Held: The petition is denied.\

DOCTRINE:

CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; ANNULMENT, DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND LEGAL

SEPARATION; PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OR FISCAL MAY BE ORDERED BY THE
COURT TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE TO PREVENT COLLUSION
BETWEEN THE PARTIES. - 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.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; NON-INTERFERENCE OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY IS NOT FATAL TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT IF PETITIONER
VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ANNULMENT OF THEIR MARRIAGE IN THE SAID
COURT. - The role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal in annulment of marriage and legal
separation proceedings is to determine whether collusion exists between the parties and to take care
that the evidence is not suppressed or fabricated. Petitioners vehement opposition to the annulment
proceedings negates the conclusion that collusion existed between the parties. There is no allegation
by the petitioner that evidence was suppressed or fabricated by any of the parties. Under these
circumstances, we are convinced that the non-intervention of 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.