Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 791 views

    Tolentino v. Villanueva - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mirabel Vidal
    The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's dismissal of a petition for annulment of marriage. While the husband filed for annulment on grounds of fraud alleging his wife was pregnant before marriage without his knowledge, he refused to provide evidence or submit to interrogation by the fiscal as required by law. Articles 121 and 122 of the Civil Code prohibit decisions in annulment cases based solely on the plaintiff's evidence if the defendant does not appear, instead requiring the fiscal to investigate potential collusion. As the state has interest in upholding marriage, dismissal was proper given the plaintiff's failure to cooperate with the legally mandated investigation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tolentino v. Villanueva - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mirabel Vidal
    791 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's dismissal of a petition for annulment of marriage. While the husband filed for annulment on grounds of fraud alleging his wife was pregnant before marriage without his knowledge, he refused to provide evidence or submit to interrogation by the fiscal as required by law. Articles 121 and 122 of the Civil Code prohibit decisions in annulment cases based solely on the plaintiff's evidence if the defendant does not appear, instead requiring the fiscal to investigate potential collusion. As the state has interest in upholding marriage, dismissal was proper given the plaintiff's failure to cooperate with the legally mandated investigation.

    Original Title

    Tolentino v. Villanueva_digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's dismissal of a petition for annulment of marriage. While the husband filed for annulment on grounds of fraud alleging his wife was pregnant before marriage without his knowledge, he refused to provide evidence or submit to interrogation by the fiscal as required by law. Articles 121 and 122 of the Civil Code prohibit decisions in annulment cases based solely on the plaintiff's evidence if the defendant does not appear, instead requiring the fiscal to investigate potential collusion. As the state has interest in upholding marriage, dismissal was proper given the plaintiff's failure to cooperate with the legally mandated investigation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    791 views2 pages

    Tolentino v. Villanueva - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mirabel Vidal
    The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's dismissal of a petition for annulment of marriage. While the husband filed for annulment on grounds of fraud alleging his wife was pregnant before marriage without his knowledge, he refused to provide evidence or submit to interrogation by the fiscal as required by law. Articles 121 and 122 of the Civil Code prohibit decisions in annulment cases based solely on the plaintiff's evidence if the defendant does not appear, instead requiring the fiscal to investigate potential collusion. As the state has interest in upholding marriage, dismissal was proper given the plaintiff's failure to cooperate with the legally mandated investigation.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TOLENTINO v.

    VILLANUEVA ROMULO TOLENTINO, petitioner, HELEN VILLANUEVA and HONORABLE CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, Judge of the Juven !e and "o#e$t % Re!at on$ Cou&t, respondents. 'ACT() *+ On April 26, 1962, petitioner Romulo Tolentino filed a suit for annulment of his marriage to private respondent Helen Villanueva, alleging that his consent as o!tained through fraud !ecause immediatel" after the marriage cele!ration, he discovered that private respondent as pregnant despite the fact that he had no se#ual relations ith her prior to the marriage ceremon"$ and that the" did not live as hus!and and ife as immediatel" after the marriage cele!ration, Helen Villanueva left his house and her herea!outs remained un%no n to him until &anuar", 1962 hen he discovered that she is residing in 'an (rancisco, )e!u. ,+ 'aid marriage as solemni*ed !" +ue*on )it" &udge ,ariano R. Virtucio on 'eptem!er 2-, 19.9. -+ /espite the fact that she as served ith summons and cop" of the complaint, Helen failed to file a responsive pleading, for hich reason petitioner filed on &une 10, 1962 a motion to declare her in default and to set the date for the presentation of his evidence. .+ 1n an order dated &une 2-, 1962, respondent &udge declared private respondent in default, !ut, pursuant to the provision of Articles -- and 121 of the )ivil )ode of the 3hilippines, referred the case to the )it" (iscal of ,anila for investigation to determine hether collusion e#ists !et een the parties, directing the )it" (iscal to su!mit his report ithin si#t" 4625 da"s from receipt thereof, and, in the event of a negative finding, to represent the 'tate at the trial of the case to prevent fa!rication of evidence$ and li%e ise directed herein petitioner to furnish the )it" (iscal ith copies of the complaint and such other documents necessar" for the )it" (iscal6s information and guidance. /+ On &ul" 0, 1962, thru counsel, petitioner su!mitted to the )it" (iscal onl" a cop" of his complaint. 0+ Assistant )it" (iscal Rafael A. &ose, assigned to the case, issued a su!poena to petitioner6s counsel re7uiring him to !ring petitioner ith him as ell as copies of other documents in connection ith the annulment case on August 28, 1962 at 12922 A.,. 1+ 3laintiff6s counsel, in a letter dated August 2:, 1962, informed Assistant )it" (iscal &ose that he could not compl" ith the su!poena for it ill unnecessaril" e#pose his evidence.; 2+ 1n a motion dated and filed on Octo!er 29, 1962, petitioner, thru counsel, pra"ed the respondent &udge to set the date for the reception of his evidence on the ground that the )it" (iscal had not su!mitted a report of his findings despite the lapse of si#t" 4625 da"s from &ul" 12, 1962 hen he su!mitted to the )it" (iscal a cop" of the complaint. 3+ On <ovem!er 6, 1962, respondent &udge denied the aforesaid motion of petitioner unless he su!mits himself for interrogation !" the )it" (iscal to ena!le the latter to report hether or not there is collusion !et een the parties. *4+ 1n an order dated &ul" 29, 1960, respondent &udge dismissed the complaint in vie of the fact that petitioner is not illing to su!mit himself for interrogation !" the )it" (iscal pursuant to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 121 of the <e )ivil )ode. **+ 3laintiff=s ,R as denied, hence this petition.

    I((UE) >hether the lo er court is correct in dismissing the plaintiff=s petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud !ecause the same as !ased merel" on a stipulation of facts or !" confession of ?udgment RULING) 5E(. >here the hus!and filed a case for annulment on the ground of fraud 4concealment of pregnanc"5, and the ife failed to file a responsive pleading, the court referred the case to the fiscal for investigation. Ho ever, the hus!and refused to sho his evidence nor !e interrogated !" the fiscal, hence, the court correctl" dismissed the complaint for annulment. The investigation of the fiscal is a prere7uisite to the annulment of marriage here defendant has defaulted. Articles -- and 121 of the )ivil )ode of the 3hilippines e#pressl" prohi!it the rendition of a decision in suits for annulment of marriage and legal separation !ased on a stipulation of facts or !" confession of ?udgment and direct

    that in case of non@appearance of defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorne" to in7uire hether or not collusion !et een the parties e#ists, and if none, said prosecuting attorne" shall intervene for the 'tate to prevent fa!rication of evidence for the plaintiff. Aven the 19:2 Rules of )ourt, hich preceded the 19.2 )ivil )ode of the 3hilippines, direct that actions for the annulment of marriage or divorce shall not !e decided unless the material facts alleged in the complaint are proved. The prohi!ition e#pressed in the aforesaid la s and rules is predicated on the fact that the institutions of marriage and of the famil" are sacred and therefore are as much the concern of the 'tate as of the spouses$ !ecause the 'tate and the pu!lic have vital interest in the maintenance and preservation of these social institutions against desecration !" collusion !et een the parties or !" fa!ricated evidence. The prohi!ition against annulling a marriage !ased on the stipulation of facts or !" confession of ?udgment or !" non@appearance of the defendant stresses the fact that marriage is more than a mere contract !et een the parties$ and for this reason, hen the defendant fails to appear, the la en?oins the court to direct the prosecuting officer to intervene for the 'tate in order to preserve the integrit" and sanctit" of the marital !onds. Hence, the inevita!le conclusion is that the petition is ithout merit. >HARA(ORA, THA OR/AR /ATA/ &BCD 29, 1960 1' HARAED A((1R,A/ A</ THA 3AT1T1O< 1' HARAED /1',1''A/. >1TH )O'T' AFA1<'T 3AT1T1O<AR.

    You might also like