7/28/2019 Legal Separation - Ancheta vs Ancheta

1/2

Ancheta vs. Ancheta

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004

Annulment of Marriage, Civil Law, Marriage

FACTS:

Petitioner Marietta Ancheta and respondent Rodolfo Ancheta were married on March 5, 1959 and had

eight children. After 33 years of marriage the petitioner left the respondent and their children. Their

conjugal properties were later separated through a court-sanctioned compromise agreement where the

petitioner got among others a resort in Cavite. When the husband wanted to marry again, he filed

before the Regional Trial Court a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with the petitioner

on the ground of psychological incapacity on June 5, 1995. Although he knew that the petitioner was

already residing at the resort in Cavite, he alleged in his petition that the petitioner was residing at Las

Pias, Metro Manila, such that summons never reached her. Nevertheless substituted service was

rendered to their son at his residence in Cavite. Petitioner was then declared in default for failing to

answer the said petition. Just over a month after it was filed, the trial court granted the petition and

declared the marriage of the parties void ab initio.

Five years later, petitioner challenged the trial courts order declaring as void ab initio her marriage with

respondent Rodolfo, citing extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction over her person, among others. She

alleged that the respondent lied on her real address in his petition so she never received summons on

the case, hence depriving her of her right to be heard. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition so

she now comes to the Supreme Court for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the declaration of nullity of marriage was valid?

HELD:

NO. The trial court and the public prosecutor defied Article 48 of the Family Code and Rule 18, Section 6

of the 1985 Rules of Court (now Rule 9, Section 3[e] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught with the danger of collusion,says the Court. Hence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and legal

separation, the prosecuting attorney 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.

7/28/2019 Legal Separation - Ancheta vs Ancheta

2/2

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.

Here, the trial court immediately received the evidence of the respondent ex-parte and rendered

judgment against the petitioner without a whimper of protest from the public prosecutor who even did

not challenge the motion to declare petitioner in default.

The Supreme Court reiterates: 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.

Petition is GRANTED.