Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 181 views

    03 Tolentino Vs Villanueva

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    Tolentino filed for annulment against his wife Villanueva. The judge issued a subpoena for Tolentino to present evidence to determine if there was collusion between the parties. Tolentino refused to present evidence claiming it would expose him. The judge then dismissed the case when Tolentino did not appear in court. The Supreme Court ruled that determining collusion is essential in annulment cases according to the Civil Code. They agreed with the dismissal since Tolentino refused opportunities to prove his claim, and the government must protect the family institution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    03 Tolentino Vs Villanueva

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    181 views2 pages
    Tolentino filed for annulment against his wife Villanueva. The judge issued a subpoena for Tolentino to present evidence to determine if there was collusion between the parties. Tolentino refused to present evidence claiming it would expose him. The judge then dismissed the case when Tolentino did not appear in court. The Supreme Court ruled that determining collusion is essential in annulment cases according to the Civil Code. They agreed with the dismissal since Tolentino refused opportunities to prove his claim, and the government must protect the family institution.

    Original Description:

    s

    Original Title

    03 Tolentino vs Villanueva

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tolentino filed for annulment against his wife Villanueva. The judge issued a subpoena for Tolentino to present evidence to determine if there was collusion between the parties. Tolentino refused to present evidence claiming it would expose him. The judge then dismissed the case when Tolentino did not appear in court. The Supreme Court ruled that determining collusion is essential in annulment cases according to the Civil Code. They agreed with the dismissal since Tolentino refused opportunities to prove his claim, and the government must protect the family institution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    181 views2 pages

    03 Tolentino Vs Villanueva

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    Tolentino filed for annulment against his wife Villanueva. The judge issued a subpoena for Tolentino to present evidence to determine if there was collusion between the parties. Tolentino refused to present evidence claiming it would expose him. The judge then dismissed the case when Tolentino did not appear in court. The Supreme Court ruled that determining collusion is essential in annulment cases according to the Civil Code. They agreed with the dismissal since Tolentino refused opportunities to prove his claim, and the government must protect the family institution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Tolentino vs Villanueva (1974)

    Petitioner: ROMULO TOLENTINO


    respondents: HELEN VILLANUEVA and HONORABLE
    CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, Judge of the Juvenile and
    Domestic Relations Court
    PONENTE: Justice MAKASIAR
    G.R. No. L-23264
    March 15, 1974
    TOPICS:
    FACTS:
    Tolentino filed an annulment case against his wife,
    Villanueava. The judge issued subpoena in order to
    determine whether there is collusion between the parties.
    Tolentino refused to present his evidence as it will expose
    his evidence. The judge required Tolentino to appear in
    court in order to interrogate him for the same purposes;
    however, Tolentino did not appear. The court dismissed
    the case.
    ISSUE: WON the determination whether there is collusion
    is essential to the promulgation of annulment case.
    RULING: Yes.
    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.
    Opinion:
    I agree with the ruling. Tolentino was given considerable
    opportunity to prove his claim but he refused to take this
    opportunity. In effect, since the government is protecting the
    family as the basic and primary social institution, the court has
    no choice but to deny the annulment case instead of rendering
    judgment merely on the basis of default of the other party
    which may be easily facilitated.

    You might also like