Pacete v. Carriaga
G.R. No. 53880
March 17, 1994
Facts:
Enrico Pacete and Concepcion Alanis were married in 1938. Pacete contracted another marriage to Clarita de la Concepcion, which Alanis knew about only on August 1, 1979. During the marriage, Pacete acquired properties that he registered either under his name or Clarita or in the names of his children with Clarita or with other dummies. Thus, on October 29, 1979, Alanis filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage between Pacete and de la Concepcion as well as for legal separation between her and her husband.
The defendants were served with summons on November 15, 1979. They filed a motion for extension of 20 days, which the court granted. On December 18, 1979, the defendants again filed a motion for extension through a new counsel. The court granted the motion, setting the deadline to January 9, 1980. Although the court’s order was mailed to the defendants’ counsel on January 11, 1980, they again filed a motion for extension on February 5, 1980. The next day, the court denied the motion for extension and granted petitioner Alanis’ motion to declare the defendants in default.
The Court of First Instance, in its decision on March 17, 1980, decreed the legal separation of Pacete and Alanis as well as declared null and void ab initio the marriage between Pacete and de la Concepcion.
Issue:
Did the Court of First Instance commit grave abuse of discretion?
Ruling:
Yes. A petition for certiorari is applicable when grave abuse of discretion attended the declaration of the decision. Article 101 of the Civil Code, which was later reproduced in Article 60 of the Family Code, provides
No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment.
In case of non-appearance of the defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not a collusion between the parties exists. If there is no collusion, the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated
The court did not follow the procedure mandated by the said procedure. Furthermore, Article 3 of the Civil Code, now Article 58 of the Family Code, mandates that an action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before 6 months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition to allow the parties to have a cooling-off period.
In addition, Section 6 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides
If the defendant in an action for annulment of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated.
The State is interested in the integrity of marriage as evidenced by the provisions of law mentioned. There is no excuse for non-compliance with the procedures required by statute.
It's a Ping Thing 