Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    96.1 Tuason Vs CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Estel Tabumfama
    The Supreme Court denied the petition for review of Emilio Tuason seeking to set aside the decision annulling his marriage to Victoria Tuason. [1] The trial court had declared their marriage null due to psychological incapacity, and Emilio failed to appeal the decision. [2] While a prosecuting officer is typically required to intervene in annulment cases to prevent collusion, it was not necessary here as Emilio actively participated in the case and did not allege fabricated evidence. [3] The petition failed to show any fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence to warrant setting aside the final judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    96.1 Tuason Vs CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Estel Tabumfama
    2K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petition for review of Emilio Tuason seeking to set aside the decision annulling his marriage to Victoria Tuason. [1] The trial court had declared their marriage null due to psychological incapacity, and Emilio failed to appeal the decision. [2] While a prosecuting officer is typically required to intervene in annulment cases to prevent collusion, it was not necessary here as Emilio actively participated in the case and did not allege fabricated evidence. [3] The petition failed to show any fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence to warrant setting aside the final judgment.

    Original Description:

    96.1 Tuason vs CA Case Digest

    Original Title

    96.1 Tuason vs CA Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petition for review of Emilio Tuason seeking to set aside the decision annulling his marriage to Victoria Tuason. [1] The trial court had declared their marriage null due to psychological incapacity, and Emilio failed to appeal the decision. [2] While a prosecuting officer is typically required to intervene in annulment cases to prevent collusion, it was not necessary here as Emilio actively participated in the case and did not allege fabricated evidence. [3] The petition failed to show any fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence to warrant setting aside the final judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    96.1 Tuason Vs CA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Estel Tabumfama
    The Supreme Court denied the petition for review of Emilio Tuason seeking to set aside the decision annulling his marriage to Victoria Tuason. [1] The trial court had declared their marriage null due to psychological incapacity, and Emilio failed to appeal the decision. [2] While a prosecuting officer is typically required to intervene in annulment cases to prevent collusion, it was not necessary here as Emilio actively participated in the case and did not allege fabricated evidence. [3] The petition failed to show any fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence to warrant setting aside the final judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Emilio Tuason vs CA and Victoria Tuason

    G.R. No. 116607


    10 April 1996

    Nature: Petition for review on certiorari


    Ponente: Puno

    Facts:

    On June 1972, respondent Victoria Lopez Tuazon married petitioner Emilio Tuason. Due to the series of
    physical abuse against the respondent, the petitioners 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 respondents 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 petitioners 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 counsels
    failure to notify the court of petitioners 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.

    Held: The petition is denied.\


    DOCTRINE:

    CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; ANNULMENT, DECLARATION OF NULLITY AND LEGAL


    SEPARATION; PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OR FISCAL MAY BE ORDERED BY THE
    COURT TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE TO PREVENT COLLUSION
    BETWEEN THE PARTIES. - A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is
    fraught with the danger of collusion. Hence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of
    marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the
    state for the purpose of preventing any collusion between the parties and to take care that their
    evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. 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.
    8. ID.; ID.; ID.; NON-INTERFERENCE OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY IS NOT FATAL TO
    THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT IF PETITIONER
    VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ANNULMENT OF THEIR MARRIAGE IN THE SAID
    COURT. - The role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal in annulment of marriage and legal
    separation proceedings is to determine whether collusion exists between the parties and to take care
    that the evidence is not suppressed or fabricated. Petitioners vehement opposition to the annulment
    proceedings negates the conclusion that collusion existed between the parties. There is no allegation
    by the petitioner that evidence was suppressed or fabricated by any of the parties. Under these
    circumstances, we are convinced that the non-intervention of a prosecuting attorney to assure lack of
    collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in the trial
    court.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy