Petitioner Respondent: First Division
Petitioner Respondent: First Division
Petitioner Respondent: First Division
DECISION
PARDO, J : p
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
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
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 (undescoring 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.
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.
Footnotes
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 Gutierrez, JJ., (now an Associate Justice of this Court),
concurring.
6. In Civil Case No. 3190, dated June 16, 1995, Judge Jose S. Hernandez,
presiding.
14. On August 30, 1999, we resolved to give due course to the petition, Rollo ,
p. 144.
17. No such certification appears in the decisions of the trial court and the
Court of Appeals.