Tolentino v.

Villanueva, 56 SCRA 1 March 15, 1974

FIRST DIVISION - No. L-23264. March 15, 1974

PETITIONER: Romulo Tolentino
RESPONDENT: Helen Villanueva and Hon. Corazon Juliano Agrava, Judge of the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
PONENTE: MAKASIAR, J.
(TOPIC: Procedure in action for declaration of Nullity. (d) No confession of judgment FC
48; cf NCC 2035 )

FACTS
● The Petitioner and Respondents marriage was said to have been solemnized by
Quezon City Judge Mariano R. Virtucio on Sept 28. 1959.
● On April 26, 1962, petitioner filed a suit for the annulment of his marriage (Civil Case
No. 43347) with the respondent (Helen Villanueva) alleging that his consent was
obtained through fraud and that he discovered after the marriage celebration that the
respondent was pregnant even though they didn't have any sexual relations prior to the
said marriage celebration nor did they live immediately as husband and wife. His wife f
● Despite the serving of summons and the copy of complaints, Helen (respondent) failed
to file a responsive pleading thus resulting in Romulo’s (petitioner) filing on June 13,
1962, a motion to declare the defendant in default and in order to set the date for the
presentation of his evidence.
● On June 28, 1962, Judge declared the private respondent (Helen Villanueva) in default
but referred the case to the City Fiscal of Manila for an investigation to determine
whether there’s a collusion between the parties in accordance to Art. 88 and 101 of the
new civil code.
● On July 3, 1962, thru counsel, Romulo (petitioner) submitted to the City Fiscal only a
copy of his complaint. The City Fiscal then issued a subpoena to the petitioner’s
counsel to bring Romulo before him as well as the copies of other documents in
connection with the annulment case on August 27, 1962 ar 10:00 AM. In a letter
dated August 24, 1962, Romulo’s counsel informed the Assistant City Fiscal he
could not comply with the subpoena for it will unnecessarily expose his evidence.
● A motion dated and filed on October 29, 1962, petitioner, thru counsel, prayed the
respondent Judge to set the date for the reception of his evidence on the ground
that the City Fiscal had not submitted a report of his findings despite the lapse of
sixty (60) days from July 10, 1962, when he submitted to the City Fiscal a copy of the
complaint.
● On November 6, 1962, respondent Judge denied the aforesaid motion of petitioner
unless he submits himself for interrogation by the City Fiscal to enable the latter to
report whether or not there is collusion between the parties.
● The court ordered on July 29, 1963, to dismissed the said complaint in the view of the
fact that the petitioner is not willing to submit himself for interrogation by the City fiscal
pursuant to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 101 of the New Civil Code.
 ● His motions for the reconsideration of the aforesaid order having been denied on July
29, 1963, and on April 11, 1964, petitioner now files his petition to annul the said order of
July 29, 1963, and to compel the respondent Judge to receive his evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the non-compliance of the petitioner of the interrogation by the City Fiscal
as part of the investigation to ascertain if there is a collusion between parties, may be used
as a ground for the dismissal of the Annulment Case?

HELD:
The investigation by fiscal is a prerequisite to annulment of marriage where
defendant has defaulted, thus it is sufficient for the dismissal of the said case. The
prohibition against annulling a marriage based on the stipulation of facts or by confession of
judgment or by non-appearance of the defendant stresses the fact that marriage is more
than a mere contract between the parties; and for this reason, when the defendant fails to
appear, the law enjoins the court to direct the prosecuting officer to intervene for the State
in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the marital bonds.

As stated by the Court, Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines expressly
prohibit the rendition of a decision in suits for annulment of marriage and legal separation
based on a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment and direct that in case of non-
appearance of defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether
or not collusion between the parties exists, and if none, said prosecuting attorney shall
intervene for the State to prevent fabrication of evidence for the plaintiff. Thus, Articles 88
and 101 state:

“ART. 88. No judgment annulling a marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation

of facts or by confession of judgment.
“In case of non-appearance of the defendant, the provisions of article 101,
paragraph 2, shall be observed.”

“ART. 101. No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of

facts or by confession of judgment. Tolentino vs. Villanueva, 56 SCRA 1, No. L-23264
March 15, 1974N

The Supreme Court has thus affirmed the order dated July 29, 1963, and dismissed
the petition with costs against the petitioner.
___________

ART. 88 is now amended by ART. 48 of the Family Code and it states:

“Art. 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.”
ART. 2035 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides
Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:
(1) The civil status of persons;
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
(4) Future support;
(5) The jurisdiction of courts;
(6) Future legitime. (1814a)