Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    Tuason Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Ro Che
    This case involves a petition seeking to annul a decision denying relief from a judgment declaring the nullity of a marriage between Emilio Tuason and Victoria Lopez Tuason. The Supreme Court denies the petition. It rules that the decision declaring the marriage null had already become final since no appeal was filed within the reglementary period. It also finds that the failure of Tuason's counsel to inform him of the adverse judgment or notify the court of his medical confinement is inexcusable negligence and not grounds to set aside the valid judgment. Finally, it states that the intervention of a prosecuting officer is not required here since Tuason actively participated in the case's proceedings until failing to appear for a hearing.

    Copyright:

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

    Tuason Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Ro Che
    75 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition seeking to annul a decision denying relief from a judgment declaring the nullity of a marriage between Emilio Tuason and Victoria Lopez Tuason. The Supreme Court denies the petition. It rules that the decision declaring the marriage null had already become final since no appeal was filed within the reglementary period. It also finds that the failure of Tuason's counsel to inform him of the adverse judgment or notify the court of his medical confinement is inexcusable negligence and not grounds to set aside the valid judgment. Finally, it states that the intervention of a prosecuting officer is not required here since Tuason actively participated in the case's proceedings until failing to appear for a hearing.

    Original Description:

    Tuason vs CA

    Original Title

    Tuason vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition seeking to annul a decision denying relief from a judgment declaring the nullity of a marriage between Emilio Tuason and Victoria Lopez Tuason. The Supreme Court denies the petition. It rules that the decision declaring the marriage null had already become final since no appeal was filed within the reglementary period. It also finds that the failure of Tuason's counsel to inform him of the adverse judgment or notify the court of his medical confinement is inexcusable negligence and not grounds to set aside the valid judgment. Finally, it states that the intervention of a prosecuting officer is not required here since Tuason actively participated in the case's proceedings until failing to appear for a hearing.

    Copyright:

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

    Tuason Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Ro Che
    This case involves a petition seeking to annul a decision denying relief from a judgment declaring the nullity of a marriage between Emilio Tuason and Victoria Lopez Tuason. The Supreme Court denies the petition. It rules that the decision declaring the marriage null had already become final since no appeal was filed within the reglementary period. It also finds that the failure of Tuason's counsel to inform him of the adverse judgment or notify the court of his medical confinement is inexcusable negligence and not grounds to set aside the valid judgment. Finally, it states that the intervention of a prosecuting officer is not required here since Tuason actively participated in the case's proceedings until failing to appear for a hearing.

    Copyright:

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

    Emilio Tuason vs CA and Victoria Tuason

    G.R. No. 116607, 10 April 1996

    Nature: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul and set aside the
    decision dated July 29, 1994 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 37925
    denying petitioner's appeal from an order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
    149, Makati in Civil Case No. 3769.

    Facts:

    On June 1972, respondent Victoria Lopez Tuazon married petitioner


    Emilio Tuason. Due to the series of physical abuse against the respondent, the
    petitioner’s 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 respondent’s 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 petitioner’s 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 counsel’s failure to notify the court of petitioner’s 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.

    The petition is denied.

    You might also like