G.R. No. L-23264 - MARCH 1974 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-23264March 15, 1974 Romulo Tolentino vs.Helen Villanueva, et al. G.R. No. L-23604March 15, 1974 Coca-Cola Export Corp. vs.Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-23996March 15, 1974 Pedro Pacis vs.Manuel R. Pamaran, et al. A.C. No. 190-JMarch 21, 1974 Secretary of Justice vs.Vicente P. Bullecer A.C. No. 620March 21, 1974 Jose Alcala, et al. vs.Honesto De Vera G.R. No. L-25559March 21, 1974 Venancio Nera vs.Benigno Titong, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-31947March 21, 1974 Antonio P. Torres vs.Oscar T. Borja, et al. G.R. No. L-28169March 25, 1974 In Re: Tiu to Kiat. Tiu to Kiat vs.Republic A.M. No. 49-JMarch 27, 1974 Guillermo Ladrada vs.Ernesto B. Cachola G.R. No. L-28108March 27, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Quirino Ramolete, et al. G.R. No. L-28810March 27, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Ceferino De La Cruz G.R. No. L-29215March 27, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Dionisio Entienza, et al. G.R. No. L-30345March 27, 1974 Thelma Tanalega, et al. vs.Tito V. Tizon, et al. G.R. No. L-30801March 27, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Domingo Ural G.R. No. L-31152March 27, 1974 University of Nueva Caceres, et al. vs.Arsenio I. Martinez, et al. G.R. No. L-32421March 27, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Noel R. Jovellano, et al. G.R. No. L-32797March 27, 1974 L. Tolentino vs.Francisco De Jesus, et al. G.R. No. L-38014March 27, 1974 Moises Sacdalan vs.Crispin V. Bautista, et al. G.R. No. L-23019March 28, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Ildefonso (Bongcolo) Genoguin, et al. G.R. No. L-24293March 28, 1974 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.Philippine Planters Investment Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-30421March 28, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Primitivo Ybañez, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-32037March 28, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Danilo Villafuerte, et al. G.R. Nos. L-33709-10March 28, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Ceferino Daquioag, et al. A.C. No. 270March 29, 1974 In Re: Carlos C. Rusiana. A.M. 45-MJMarch 29, 1974 Leonardo Olaivar vs.Mj Adelaido O. Singco A.M. P-131March 29, 1974 Francisco Valencia vs.Gregorio Pamisaran G.R. No. L-22773March 29, 1974 Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. vs.Director of Patents, et al. G.R. No. L-23111March 29, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Enrique C. Paras, et al. G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896March 29,1974 Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs.Venicio Escolin, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando Concurring OpinionJustice Teehankee Concurring OpinionChief Justice Makalintal G.R. Nos. L-30527-28March 29, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Pio Ricohermoso, et al. G.R. No. L-30619March 29, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Ben Dayag G.R. No. L-30988March 29, 1974 People of the Philippines vs.Dalmacio Barbo G.R. No. L-32532March 29, 1974 Development Bank of the Philippines vs.Santiago Tañada, et al. G.R. No. L-33517March 29, 1974 Philippine Constitution Association, et al. vs.Cornelio T. Villareal, et al. G.R. No. L-34531March 29, 1974 Philippine Communications, Electronics & Electricity Workers' Federation vs.Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-35271March 29, 1974 Felix C. Halimao vs.Francisco P. Felix G.R. No. L-35738March 29, 1974 Ranavalona Vinzons vs.Gerardo Ardales G.R. No. L-37682March 29, 1974 Republic, et al. vs.Pedro Samson Animas G.R. No. L-38161March 29, 1974 Juan Bello, et al. vs.Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Romulo Tolentino vs.Helen Villanueva, et al. Coca-Cola Export Corp. vs.Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. Pedro Pacis vs.Manuel R. Pamaran, et al. Secretary of Justice vs.Vicente P. Bullecer Jose Alcala, et al. vs.Honesto De Vera Venancio Nera vs.Benigno Titong, Jr., et al. Antonio P. Torres vs.Oscar T. Borja, et al. In Re: Tiu to Kiat. Tiu to Kiat vs.Republic Guillermo Ladrada vs.Ernesto B. Cachola People of the Philippines vs.Quirino Ramolete, et al. People of the Philippines vs.Ceferino De La Cruz People of the Philippines vs.Dionisio Entienza, et al. Thelma Tanalega, et al. vs.Tito V. Tizon, et al. People of the Philippines vs.Domingo Ural University of Nueva Caceres, et al. vs.Arsenio I. Martinez, et al. People of the Philippines vs.Noel R. Jovellano, et al. L. Tolentino vs.Francisco De Jesus, et al. Moises Sacdalan vs.Crispin V. Bautista, et al. People of the Philippines vs.Ildefonso (Bongcolo) Genoguin, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.Philippine Planters Investment Co., Inc., et al. People of the Philippines vs.Primitivo Ybañez, Jr., et al. People of the Philippines vs.Danilo Villafuerte, et al. People of the Philippines vs.Ceferino Daquioag, et al. In Re: Carlos C. Rusiana. Leonardo Olaivar vs.Mj Adelaido O. Singco Francisco Valencia vs.Gregorio Pamisaran Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. vs.Director of Patents, et al. People of the Philippines vs.Enrique C. Paras, et al. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs.Venicio Escolin, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando Concurring OpinionJustice Teehankee Concurring OpinionChief Justice Makalintal People of the Philippines vs.Pio Ricohermoso, et al. People of the Philippines vs.Ben Dayag People of the Philippines vs.Dalmacio Barbo Development Bank of the Philippines vs.Santiago Tañada, et al. Philippine Constitution Association, et al. vs.Cornelio T. Villareal, et al. Philippine Communications, Electronics & Electricity Workers' Federation vs.Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Felix C. Halimao vs.Francisco P. Felix Ranavalona Vinzons vs.Gerardo Ardales Republic, et al. vs.Pedro Samson Animas Juan Bello, et al. vs.Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-23264 March 15, 1974

ROMULO TOLENTINO,petitioner,
vs.
HELEN VILLANUEVA and HONORABLE CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court,respondents.

Magno T. Bueser for petitioner.

MAKASIAR,J.:

Petitioner prays for the nullification of the order dated July 29, 1963 of the respondent Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila.

On April 26, 1962, petitioner Romulo Tolentino filed a suit for annulment of his marriage to private respondent Helen Villanueva, alleging that his consent was obtained through fraud because immediately after the marriage celebration, he discovered that private respondent was pregnant despite the fact that he had no sexual relations with her prior to the marriage ceremony; and that they did not live as husband and wife as immediately after the marriage celebration, Helen Villanueva left his house and her whereabouts remained unknown to him until January, 1962 when he discovered that she is residing in San Francisco, Cebu. Said marriage was solemnized by Quezon City Judge Mariano R. Virtucio on September 28, 1959. Said case was docketed as Civil Case No, 43347 of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila.

Despite the fact that she was served with summons and copy of the complaint, Helen failed to file a responsive pleading, for which reason petitioner filed on June 13, 1962 a motion to declare her in default and to set the date for the presentation of his evidence.

In an order dated June 28, 1962, respondent Judge declared private respondent in default, but, pursuant to the provision of Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, referred the case to the City Fiscal of Manila for investigation to determine whether collusion exists between the parties, directing the City Fiscal to submit his report within sixty (60) days from receipt thereof, and, in the event of a negative finding, to represent the State at the trial of the case to prevent fabrication of evidence; and likewise directed herein petitioner to furnish the City Fiscal with copies of the complaint and such other documents necessary for the City Fiscal's information and guidance.

On July 3, 1962, thru counsel, petitioner submitted to the City Fiscal only a copy of his complaint.

Assistant City Fiscal Rafael A. Jose, assigned to the case, issued a subpoena to petitioner's counsel requiring him to bring petitioner with him as well as copies of other documents in connection with the annulment case on August 27, 1962 at 10:00 A.M.

Plaintiff's counsel, in a letter dated August 24, 1962, informed Assistant City Fiscal Jose that he could not comply with the subpoena for it will unnecessarily expose his evidence.

In 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.ℒαwρhi৷

In an order dated July 29, 1963, respondent Judge dismissed the complaint in view of the fact that 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 said order of July 29, 1963 and to compel the respondent Judge to receive his evidence.

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:

Even the 1940 Rules of Court, which preceded the 1950 Civil Code of the Philippines, direct that actions for the annulment of marriage or divorce shall not be decided unless the material facts alleged in the complaint are proved (Sec. 10, Rule 35, 1940 Rules of Court). The same rule is reiterated in Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1964 Revised Rules, with "legal separation" being substituted for "divorce", obviously because the present Civil Code does not authorize absolute divorce.

The prohibition expressed in the aforesaid laws and rules is predicated on the fact that the institutions of marriage and of the family are sacred and therefore are as much the concern of the State as of the spouses; because the State and the public have vital interest in the maintenance and preservation of these social institutions against desecration by collusion between the parties or by fabricated evidence. 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 (De Ocampo vs. Florenciano, 107 Phil. 35, 38-40; Brown vs. Yambao, 102 Phil. 168, 172; Bigornia de Cardenas vs. Cardenas, et al., 98 Phil. 73, 78-79; Roque vs. Encarnacion, et al., 95 Phil. 643, 646).

Hence, the inevitable conclusion is that the petition is without merit.

WHEREFORE, THE ORDER DATED JULY 29, 1963 IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED. WITH COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER.

Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Teehankee, Esguerra and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.