Malcampo Sin vs.

Sin
Florence, the petitioner, was married with Philipp, a Portuguese citizen in January 1987.
Florence filed in September 1994, a complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage.
Trial ensued and the parties presented their respective documentary and testimonial evidence.
In June 1995, trial court dismissed Florence’s petition 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.

ISSUE: Whether the declaration of nullity may be declared even with the absence of the
participation of the State in the proceedings.
HELD:
No. 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.
IV. General Rule:
Article 48 of the Family Code states 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.
In this case, the general rule applies. Throughout the trial in the lower court, the Supreme Court,
found out that the State did not participate in the proceedings, hence, this case was remanded
to the lower court for proper re-trial.