Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Emilio Tuason vs CA and Victoria Tuason

G.R. No. 116607


10 April 1996
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari
Ponente: Puno
Facts:
On June 1972, respondent Victoria Lopez Tuazon married petitioner Emilio Tuason. Due to the
series of physical abuse against the respondent, the petitioners use of prohibited drugs,
cohabitating with three women, leaving the conjugal home and giving minimal child support,
abuse of conjugal property use and incurring of bank debts without the respondents consent,
respondent filed a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity of their marriage in 1989
before RTC Makati on the ground of psychological incapacity and prayed for powers of
administration to save the conjugal properties from further dissipation.
Petitioner filed his Opposition in April 1990 and was thereafter scheduled to present his evidence
on 11 May 1990. Counsel for petitioner moved for a postponement to 8 June, however, petitioner
failed to appear. On 29 June 1990, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the nullity of
marriage and awarding the custody of common children to respondent. No appeal was taken.
Thereafter, on 24 September 1990, respondent filed Motion for Dissolution of Conjugal
Partnership of Gains and Adjudication to Plaintiff of the Conjugal Properties which was
opposed by petitioner on 17 October. On the same day, petitioner filed a petitioner from relief of
judgment of the 19 June 1990 decision. The trial court denied the petition on 8 August 1991
which was affirmed by the CA on July 1994. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Issues:
1. Whether a petitioner for relief from judgment is warranted because the decision of the Court is
null and void for violation of petitioners right to due process.
2. Whether in the absence of the petitioner in the hearing, the court should have ordered a
prosecuting officer to intervene under Art. 48 of the Family Code.
Ruling: Section 2 of Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: a final and executory
judgment of the RTC may be set aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence with petitioner showing meritorious cause of action. In the case at bar, the decision of
nullity had already become final when petitioner through his counsel failed to appeal during the
reglementary period despite petitioner eventually justifying his absence due to medical reasons.
Further, the failure of the counsel to inform petitioner of adverse judgment to enable him to
appeal is an inexcusable negligence and not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and
regular on its face. Similarly inexcusable is the counsels failure to notify the court of petitioners
confinement. Petitioner cannot claim he was deprived of due process by the Court.

Petitioner likewise insists he has a meritorious defense by citing the Family Code which provides
that in actions for annulment of marriage or legal separation, the prosecuting officer shall
intervene for the state. He contends that when he failed to appear at the hearing, the trial court
should have ordered the prosecuting officer to intervene for the state and inquire as to the reason
for his nonappearance. Because the Constitution is committed to the preservation and
strengthening of the family as a basic social institution, Art. 48 and 60 provides that a
prosecuting officer shall intervene if a defendant spouse fails to answer the complaint to prevent
collision. It cannot be applied to the case at bar because the petitioner actively participated in the
proceedings by filing several pleadings and cross-examination of the witnesses.
Held: The petition is denied.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai