Jessette Amihope N.

Castor

ROMULO TOLENTINO, petitioner

vs
HELEN VILLANUEVA and HONORABLE CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, Judge of the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, respondents
March 15, 1974
G.R. No. L-23264

Makasiar, J.

Facts:
Romulo Tolentino filed a suit for annulment of his marriage to Helen Villanueva.
However, despite the fact that Helen was served with summons and copy of the
complaint, Helen failed to file a responsive pleading, for which reason Romulo filed a
motion to declare her in default and to set the date for the presentation of his evidence.
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila declared Helen in default, but,
pursuant to the provision of Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code, referred the case to
the City fiscal for investigation to determine whether collusion exists between the
parties. Romulo submitted to the City Fiscal only a copy of his complaint. The fiscal
issued a subpoena to Romulo’s counsel requiring him to bring Romulo with him as well
as copies of other documents in connection with the annulment case.

However, Romulo’s counsel informed the fiscal that he could not comply with the
subpoena for it will unnecessarily expose his evidence. In a motion, Romulo Tolentino’s
counsel prayed to set the date for the reception of his evidence on the ground that the
City fiscal had not submitted a report of his findings despite the lapse of sixty days when
he submitted to the City fiscal a copy of the complaint. Respondent Judge denied the
aforesaid motion of Romulo unless he submits himself for interrogation by the City fiscal
to enable the latter to report whether or not there is collusion between the parties.
Respondent Judge dismissed the complaint in view of the fact that Romulo is not willing
to submit himself for interrogation Romulo filed a petition to annul said order and to
compel the respondent Judge to receive his evidence.

Issue:
Whether or not the order of the respondent judge dismissing the complaint due to
the fact that the petitioner is not willing to submit himself for interrogation by the City
Fiscal is valid

Held:
The order of the respondent judge is valid. Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines expressly prohibit the rendition of a decision in suits for annulment of
marriage and legal separation based on a stipulation of facts or by confession of
judgment and direct that in case of non-appearance of defendant, the court shall order
the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not collusion between the parties exists,
and if none, said prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the state to prevent fabrication
of evidence for the petitioner. Institutions of marriage and of the family are sacred and
therefore are as much the concern of the State as of the spouses. The state and the
public have vital interest in the maintenance and preservation of these social institutions
against desecration by collusion between the parties or by fabricated evidence.