Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
nature or subject of the action, the petitioner need not allege in the petition
that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the final order
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
726
727
728
ested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy
families. The break-up of families weakens our social and moral fabric;
hence, their preservation is not the concern of the family members alone.
Whether or not a marriage should continue to exist or a family should stay
together must not depend on the whims and caprices of only one party, who
claims that the other suffers psychological imbalance, incapacitating such
party to fulfill his or her marital duties and obligations.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
_______________
729
b. A parcel of land (adjoining the two lots covered by TCT Nos. 120082 and
TCT No. 120083-Cavite) located at Bancal, Carmona, Cavite, registered in
the name of the family Ancheta. Biofood Corporation under TCT No.
310882, together with the resort Munting Paraiso, Training Center, four-
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
storey building, pavilion, swimming pool and all improvements. All of the
shares of stocks of Ancheta Biofoods Corporation were distributed one-third
6
(1/3) to the petitioner and the eight children one-twelfth (1/12) each.
_______________
3 CA Rollo,pp. 26-27.
4Id.,at p. 26.
5 Rollo, pp. 95-102.
6 CA Rollo,pp.4-5.
730
RETURN OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the summons together with the copy of the complaint
and its annexes was received by the herein defendant thru his son Venancio
M.B. Ancheta [III] as evidenced by the signature appearing on the
summons. Service was made on June 6, 1995.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
_______________
7Id.,at p. 49.
8Id.,at p. 53.
9Id.
10Id.,at p. 54.
731
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
_______________
732
1. Declaring null and void the Order dated June 7, 1995 (of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Naic, Cavite).
2. Ordering respondent to pay petitioner
“We cannot give due course to the present petition in default or in the
absence of any clear and specific averment by petitioner that the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of petitioner. Neither is
there any averment or allegation that the present petition is based only on
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Nor yet that, on the
assumption that extrinsic fraud can be a valid ground therefor, that it was
not availed of, or could15
not have been availed of, in a motion for new trial,
or petition for relief.”
_______________
14Id.,at p. 21.
15Id.,at p. 101.
733
petitioner; neither has she ever availed of16 the said remedies. This
petition is the only available remedy to her.
The petitioner also alleged therein that the order of the trial court
nullifying her and the respondent’s marriage was null and void for
the court a quo’sfailure to order the public prosecutor to conduct an
investigation on whether there was collusion between the parties,
and to order the Solicitor General to appear for the State.
On September 27, 2000, the CA issued a Resolution denying the
said motion.
The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with this
Court alleging that the CA erred as follows:
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
_______________
16Id.,at p. 109.
17 Rollo,p. 36.
18 Rule 47, Section 1.
734
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
_______________
735
22
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
22
or final order in any action
23
or proceeding whenever it is invoked,
unless barred by laches.
In this case, the original petition and the amended petition in the
Court of Appeals, in light of the material averments therein, were
based not only on extrinsic fraud, but also on lack of jurisdiction of
the trial court over the person of the petitioner because of the failure
of the sheriff to serve on her the summons and a copy of the
complaint. She claimed that the summons and complaint were
served on her son, Venancio Mariano B. Ancheta III, who, however,
failed to give her the said summons and complaint.
Even a cursory reading of the material averments of the original
petition and its annexes will show that it is, prima facie meritorious;
hence, it should have been given due course by the Court of
Appeals. 24
In Paramount Insurance Corporation v.Japzon, we held that
jurisdiction is acquired by a trial court over the person of the
defendant either by his voluntary appearance in court and his
submission to its authority or by service of summons. The service of
summons and the complaint on the defendant is to inform him that a
case has been filed against him and, thus, enable him to defend
himself. He is, thus, put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiff
or the petitioner. Without such service in the absence of a valid
_______________
736
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
_______________
737
As gleaned from the petition and the amended petition in the CA and
the annexes thereof, the 32
summons in Sp. Proc. No. NC-662 was
issued on June 6, 1995. On the same day, the summons was served
33
on and received by Venancio Mariano B. Ancheta III, the
petitioner’s son. When the return of summons was submitted to the
court by the sheriff on June 21, 1995, no statement was made on the
impossibility of locating the defendant therein within a reasonable
time, or that any effort was made by the sheriff to locate the
defendant. There was no mention therein that Venancio Mariano
Ancheta III was residing at No. 72 CRM Avenue cor. CRM
Corazon, BF Homes, Almanza, Las Piñas, where the petitioner
(defendant therein) was allegedly residing. It turned out that
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
_______________
32 CA Rollo, p. 53.
33 Ibid.
34 Id.,at pp. 55-56.
738
the records. The records show that for the petitioner’s failure to file
an answer to the complaint, the trial court granted the motion of the
respondent herein to declare her in default. The public prosecutor
condoned the acts of the trial court when he interposed no objection
to the motion of the respondent. The trial court forthwith received
the evidence of the respondent ex-parte and rendered judgment
against the petitioner without a whimper of protest from the public
prosecutor. The actuations of the trial court and the public
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
The trial court and the public prosecutor also ignored Rule 18,
Section 6 of the 1985 Rules of Court (now Rule 9, Section 3[e] of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) which provides:
(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
_______________
35 Supra.
36 Supra.
37 268 SCRA 198 (1997).
739
will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his
agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor
General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed
submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge
the equivalent
38
function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon
1095.
39
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
39
This Court in the case of Malcampo-Sin v.Sin 40
reiterated its
pronouncement in Republic v.Court of Appeals regarding the role
of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
41
and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the State. The trial court, abetted by the
ineptitude, if not sheer negligence of the public prosecutor, waylaid
_______________
38 Id.,at p. 213.
39 355 SCRA 285 (2001).
40 Supra.
41 The procedure has been modified by the Supreme Court in Administrative
Matter No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on March 15, 2003.
Sec. 8. Answer.—(1) The respondent shall file his answer within fifteen days from
service of summons, or within thirty days from the last issue of publication in case of
service of summons by publication. The answer must be verified by the respondent
himself and not by counsel or attorney-in-fact.
(2) If the respondent fails to file an answer, the court shall not declare him or her
in default.
(3) Where no answer is filed or if the answer does not tender an issue, the court
shall order the public prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists
between the parties.
(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists, he shall state the basis
thereof in his report. The parties shall file their respective comments on the
finding of collusion within ten days from receipt of a copy of the report. The
court shall set the report for hearing and, if convinced that the parties are in
collusion, it shall dismiss the petition.
(3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the court shall set the
case for pre-trial. It shall be the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for
the State at the pre-trial.
740
the Rules of Court and the Family Code, as well as the rulings of
this Court.
The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution
requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere proforma
compliance. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
8/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 424
requires not just the defense of a42 true and genuine union but the
exposure of an invalid one as well.
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 prosecutingattorney 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.
Our constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the
family as a basic social institution. Our family law is based on the
policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in
which the State is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger
anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The breakup of
families weakens our social and moral fabric; hence, their43
preservation is not the concern of the family members alone.
Whether or not a marriage should continue to exist or a family
should stay together must not depend on the whims and caprices of
only one party, who claims that the other suffers psychological
imbalance, incapacitating such party to fulfill his or her marital
duties and obligations.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated July 13,
2000 and September 27, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 59550 are hereby
SET ASIDE and REVERSED. Let the records of CA-G.R. SP No.
59550 be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings
_______________
741
——o0o——
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c492e63df21339c66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18