Case Digest No 7

G.R. No. 145370 March 4, 2004
MARIETTA B. ANCHETA, petitioner, vs. RODOLFO S. ANCHETA, respondent.
CALLEJO, SR.,

Facts:

On December 6, 1992, the respondent left the conjugal home and abandoned the petitioner and their children. The Respondent intended to marry again and filed a petition with RTC Cavite for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with petitioner on the ground of psychological incapacity. The clerk of court issued summons to the petitioner at the address stated in the petition. The sheriff served the summons and a copy of the petition by substituted service on June 6, 1995 on the petitioner’s son, Venancio Mariano B. Ancheta III, submitted a Return of Service to the court stating that the summons and a copy of the petition were served on the petitioner through her son.
The petitioner failed to file an answer to the petition. During the hearing on the said date, there was no appearance for the petitioner. The public prosecutor appeared for the State and offered no objection to the motion of the respondent who appeared with counsel. And the Court Grant the petition and declaring the marriage of the parties void ab initio.

Issue:

Whether or not, the decision of the trial court and the public prosecutor is right and fair despite of that there was no appearance of the petitioner.

Held:

No,
The Court held that, the trial court and the public prosecutor ignored Rule 18, Section 6 of the 1985 Rules of Court which provides;
Sec. 6. No defaults in actions for annulment of marriage or for legal separation. — If the defendant in an action for annulment of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not collusion between the parties exits, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated.
If the defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but instead, should order the prosecuting attorney to determine if collusion exists between the parties. The prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his own evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated.

Mga Komento

Mag-post ng isang Komento

Mga sikat na post sa blog na ito

Report no 5 - ARTICLE 16 of the FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

The FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Title I – MARRIAGE Chapter 1 – REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE ARTICLE 16 Reported by: Mary Grace De Lumban Joy G. De Loyola In the cases where parental consent or parental advice is needed, the party or parties concerned shall, in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles, attach a certificate issued by a priest, imam or minister authorized to solemnize marriage under Article 7 of this code or a marriage counselor duly accredited by the proper government agency to the effect that the contracting parties have undergone marriage counseling. Failure to attach said certificate of marriage counseling shall suspend the issuance of the marriage license for a period of three months from the completion of the publication of the application. Issuance of the marriage license within the prohibited period shall subject the issuing officer to administrative sanctions but shall not affect the validity of the marriage. Should only one of the con...
Magbasa nang higit pa

Report article no. 3 - The CIVIL CODE of the Philippines - ARTICLE 35

The CIVIL CODE R.A. No. 386 ARTICLE 35 Reported by: JOY G DE LOYOLA MARY GRACE DE LUMBAN ARTICLE 35 When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offended. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. RESERVATIO...
Magbasa nang higit pa

Case Digest No 2.

CASE DIGEST Capitle , et al. v.  Vda . De  Gaban , et al., G.R. No.  146890, June 8, 2004 Fabian Correjado inherited from his father two parcel of land subject of the case at bar. Fabian died intestate in 1919. He was survived by four children, namely: Julian, Zacarias, Francisco and Manuel, all surnamed Correjado. After Fabians death in 1919, his son Julian occupied and cultivated the two subject parcels of land until his death in 1950. He was survived by three children (Respondent). Julians brother Francisco died in 1960. He was survived by five children. And his other brother Zacarias died in 1984. He was survived by seven children. The petitioners were the descendant of Zacarias and Francisc they are filed a complaint on  November 26, 1986  for partition of the property and damages against to respondent Julians Children, alleging that Fabian married twice. First with the mother of Julian, and subsequent one with the mother of Francisco, Zaca...
Magbasa nang higit pa