SIN VS SIN (#19 355 SCRA 285)

Facts: Florence, petitioner, filed a petition for declaration of nullity of

marriage against Philipp T. Sin, respondent, who was a Portuguese
citizen. Trial ensued and the parties presented their respective
documentary and testimonial evidence. In June 1995, Florence’s
petition was dismissed and throughout its trial, the State did not
participate in the proceedings. While Fiscal Jabson filed with the trial
court a manifestation dated November 1994 stating that he found no
collusion between the parties, he did not actively participated therein.
Other than having appearance at certain hearings, nothing more was
heard of him.

Issues: Whether or not the declaration of nullity can be declared even

without the active participation of the state.

Held: The family code mandates, under article 48 that “in all cases of
annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court
shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear
on behalf of the state to take steps to prevent collusion between the
parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or
suppressed.”
The trial court should have ordered the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
and the Solicitor-General to appear as counsel for the state. No
decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification briefly stating his reasons for his agreement or opposition
as the case may be, to the petition. The records are bereft of an
evidence that the State participated in the prosecution of the case
thus, the case is remanded for proper trial.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 137590 March 26, 2001

FLORENCE MALCAMPO-SIN, petitioner,

vs.
PHILIPP T. SIN, respondent.

PARDO, J.:

The Family Code emphasizes the permanent nature of marriage,

hailing it as the foundation of the family.1 It is this inviolability which is
central to our traditional and religious concepts of morality and
provides the very bedrock on which our society finds
stability.2 Marriage is immutable and when both spouses give their
consent to enter it, their consent becomes irrevocable, unchanged
even by their independent wills.

However, this inviolability depends on whether the marriage exists and

is valid. If it is void ab initio, the "permanence" of the union becomes
irrelevant, and the Court can step in to declare it so. Article 36 of the
Family Code is the justification.3 Where it applies and is duly proven, a
judicial declaration can free the parties from the rights, obligations,
burdens and consequences stemming from their marriage.

A declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code

requires the application of procedural and substantive guidelines.
While compliance with these requirements mostly devolves upon
petitioner, the State is likewise mandated to actively intervene in the
procedure. Should there be non-compliance by the State with its
statutory duty, there is a need to remand the case to the lower court
for proper trial.

The Case
What is before the Court4 is an appeal from a decision of the Court of
Appeals5 which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 158, Pasig City6 dismissing petitioner Florence Malcampo-
Sin's (hereafter "Florence") petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage due to psychological incapacity for insufficiency of evidence.

The Facts

On January 4, 1987, after a two-year courtship and engagement,

Florence and respondent Philipp T. Sin (hereafter "Philipp"), a
Portugese citizen, were married at St. Jude Catholic Parish in San
Miguel, Manila.7

On September 20, 1994, Florence filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 158, Pasig City, a complaint for "declaration of nullity of
marriage" against Philipp.8 Trial ensued and the parties presented
their respective documentary and testimonial evidence.

On June 16, 1995, the trial court dismissed Florence's petition. 9

On December 19, 1995, Florence filed with the trial court a notice of
appeal to the Court of Appeals.10

After due proceedings, on April 30, 1998, the Court of Appeals

promulgated its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Appeal is

DISMISSED. The Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Cost
against the Appellant."11

On June 23, 1998, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion
for reconsideration of the aforequoted decision.12

On January 19, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion

for reconsideration.13

Hence, this appeal.14

The Court's Ruling

We note that throughout the trial in the lower court, the State did not
participate in the proceedings. While Fiscal Jose Danilo C.
Jabson15 filed with the trial court a manifestation dated November 16,
1994, stating that he found no collusion between the parties, 16 he did
not actively participate therein. Other than entering his appearance at
certain hearings of the case, nothing more was heard from him.
Neither did the presiding Judge take any step to encourage the fiscal
to contribute to the proceedings.

The Family Code mandates:

"ARTICLE 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of

absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State
to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take
care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed (italics ours).

"In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no

judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession
of judgment."

It can be argued that since the lower court dismissed the petition, the
evil sought to be prevented (i.e., dissolution of the marriage) did not
come about, hence, the lack of participation of the State was cured.
Not so. The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social
institution requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-
forma compliance. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution
requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the
exposure of an invalid one as well. This is made clear by the following
pronouncement:

"(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No
decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification, which will be quoted in the
decision,17 briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or
opposition as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor-
 General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor
vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095 (italics ours)."18

The records are bereft of any evidence that the State participated in
the prosecution of the case not just at the trial level but on appeal with
the Court of Appeals as well. Other than the "manifestation" filed with
the trial court on November 16, 1994, the State did not file any
pleading, motion or position paper, at any stage of the proceedings.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Erlinda Matias Dagdag,19 while we

upheld the validity of the marriage, we nevertheless characterized the
decision of the trial court as "prematurely rendered" since the
investigating prosecutor was not given an opportunity to present
controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered. This
stresses the importance of the participation of the State.

Having so ruled, we decline to rule on the factual disputes of the case,

this being within the province of the trial court upon proper re-trial.

Obiter Dictum

For purposes of re-trial, we guide the parties thus: In Republic vs.

Court of Appeals,20 the guidelines in the interpretation and application
of Article 36 of the Family Code are as follows (omitting guideline [8] in
the enumeration as it was already earlier quoted):

"(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage

belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of
the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our
Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and
unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire
Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the
nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby
protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the
family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state. The
Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the
family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and
solidarity.

"(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: a)

medically or clinically identified, b) alleged in the complaint, c)
sufficiently proven by experts and d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological — not physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence
must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was
mentally or psychically (sic) ill to such an extent that the person
could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof.
Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so
as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle
ofejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be
identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature
fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified
psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

"(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of

the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that
the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I
do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at
such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such
moment, or prior thereto.

"(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or

clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption
of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to
marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a
job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing
illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but
may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and
raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.
 "(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as
root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity
or inability, not refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In
other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in
the person, an adverse integral element in the personality
structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really
accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to
marriage.

"(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by

Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband
and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code
in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied
marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven
by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

"(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial

Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our
courts."

The Fallo

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the appealed

decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51304,
promulgated on April 30, 1998 and the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 158, Pasig City in Civil Case No. 3190, dated June 16,
1995.

Let the case be REMANDED to the trial court for proper trial.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C .J ., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1
Article 1, Family Code of the Philippines.
2
Article XV, Section 1, "The State recognizes the Filipino family
as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen
its solidarity and actively promote its total development." Section
2, "Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation
of the family and shall be protected by the State."
3
Article 36, Family Code of the Philippines, "A marriage
contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
4
Via an appeal under Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended.
5
In CA-G.R. CV No. 51304, promulgated on April 30, 1998,
Callejo, Sr., ponente, Umali and Guttierez, JJ., (now an
Associate Justice of this Court), concurring.
6
In Civil Case No. 3190, dated June 16, 1995, Judge Jose S.
Hernandez, presiding.
7
Regional Trial Court Record, p. 37.
8
Petition, Rollo, p. 16.
9
Regional Trial Court Record, pp. 81-83.
10
Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 51304, CA Rollo, p. 3.
11
Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, p. 45.
12
Petition, Rollo, p. 15.
13
Petition, Rollo, p. 16; CA Rollo, p. 142.
14
On August 30, 1999, we resolved to give due course to the
petition, Rollo, p. 144.
15
4th Asst. Provincial Prosecutor.
16
Regional Trial Court Record, p. 17.
17
No such certification appears in the decisions of the trial court
and the Court of Appeals.
18
Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 679-680 (1997).
19
G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001.
20
Supra, Note 18, pp. 676-678.