Ancheta v Ancheta

G.R. No. 145370

March 4, 2004

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 and abandoned the
respondent and their children. Two years after, Marietta filed a complaint for the dissolution of
the conjugal partnership and judicial separation of property with a plea for support and support
pendente lite. The petitioner got among others a resort in Cavite where she and her children
moved and began residence.

After some time, the husband intended to marry again and 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. Although he knew that the petitioner was already residing in Cavite, he
alleged in his petition that the petitioner was residing at Las Piñas, Metro Manila, such that
summons never reached her. 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.

On July 7, 2000, the Marietta filed a petition against the Rodolfo with the Court of Appeals
under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, as amended, for the annulment of the order of the RTC. 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 ignored
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, if the
defendant in an action fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate
whether or not 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 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.
The trial court immediately received the evidence of the respondent ex-parte and rendered
judgment against the petitioner.